[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180728141314.GA25264@amd>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 16:13:14 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>, rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18 00/16] Restartable Sequences
Hi!
> Documentation-wise, I have posted a rseq man page rfc here:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180616195803.29877-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
>
> comments are welcome!
Thanks for pointer.
+Restartable sequences are atomic with respect to preemption (making
it
+atomic with respect to other threads running on the same CPU), as
well
+as signal delivery (user-space execution contexts nested over the
same
+thread).
So the threads are protected against sigkill when running the
restartable sequence?
+Restartable sequences must not perform system calls. Doing so may
result
+in termination of the process by a segmentation fault.
+
"may result"? It would be nice to always catch that.
+Optimistic cache of the CPU number on which the current thread is
+running. Its value is guaranteed to always be a possible CPU number,
+even when rseq is not initialized. The value it contains should
always
+be confirmed by reading the cpu_id field.
I'm not sure what "optimistic cache" is...
+Flags indicating the restart behavior for the current thread. This is
+mainly used for debugging purposes. Can be either:
+.IP \[bu]
+RSEQ_CS_FLAG_NO_RESTART_ON_PREEMPT
+.IP \[bu]
+RSEQ_CS_FLAG_NO_RESTART_ON_SIGNAL
+.IP \[bu]
Flags tell me there may be more then one, but "can be either" tells me
just one flag is allowed.
+.B Structure alignment
+This structure is aligned on multiples of 32 bytes.
+.TP
+.B Structure size
+This structure has a fixed size of 32 bytes.
+.B Structure alignment
+This structure is aligned on multiples of 32 bytes.
+.TP
+.B Structure size
+This structure has a fixed size of 32 bytes.
I believe we normally say "is aligned on 32-bytes boundary". (Will not
this need to be bigger on machines with bigger cache sizes?)
above it says:
+.B Structure size
+This structure is extensible. Its size is passed as parameter to the
+rseq system call.
I'm reading source, so maybe it refers to different structure.
Thanks,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists