[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMzpN2ia05id1OxHbF-7VuQ7O-D4SV3THkq8btePfgeKbNDy9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 18:05:54 -0400
From: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To: "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] x86: Rewrite switch_to()
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
> This patch set simplifies the switch_to() code, by moving the stack switch
> code out of line into an asm stub before calling __switch_to(). This ends
> up being more readable, and using the C calling convention instead of
> clobbering all registers improves code generation. It also allows newly
> forked processes to construct a special stack frame to seamlessly flow
> to ret_from_fork, instead of using a test and branch, or an unbalanced
> call/ret.
>
> Changes from v1:
> - Added struct inactive_task_frame
> - Added comments about kernel threads returning to userspace
> - Cleaned up some incorrect uses of thread.sp
I forgot to also add:
- Rearranged inactive stack frame so that BP (frame pointer) is in the
natural position right below the return address. This should take
care of unwinding issues Josh raised.
--
Brian Gerst
Powered by blists - more mailing lists