[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091105110857.GR31511@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:08:57 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Americo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC x86_64 more accurate KSTK_ESP implementation
> +void update_usersp(struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + unsigned long stk = (unsigned long)task_stack_page(current);
> + unsigned long stkp = (regs)->sp;
> +
> + if (((stkp < stk) || (stkp >= stk + THREAD_SIZE))
> + && regs->ip < PAGE_OFFSET)
> + percpu_write(old_rsp, stkp);
This does not handle interrupt and exception stacks correctly.
Also regs->ip is never a safe check for running in user space,
because a program can set the IP to a arbitrary value for a one
instruction window.
The larger problem is also if the kernel moves to no-tick-for-non-idle
(which I guess will happen sooner or later) your method won't
work anyways, or again be arbitarily inaccurate. Even today 10ms
worst time inaccuracy for HZ=100 is rather bad, there can be a lot of stack
allocations in that time. And adding new dependencies on a regular
timer when everything else is moving away from that doesn't seem right.
Also I suspect this method won't work on preempt-rt without
additional tweaks.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists