On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 01:28:36AM +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:48:14AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > If we actually bit the bullet and implemented per-cpu mappings
> >
> > That's not ever going to happen.
> >
> > The Linux VM model of "one page table per VM" is the right one.
> > Anything else sucks, and makes threading a disaster.
> >
> > So you can try to prove me wrong, but seriously, I doubt you'll succeed.
> >
> > On x86, if you want per-cpu memory areas, you should basically plan on
> > using segment registers instead (although other odd state has been
> > used - there's been the people who use segment limits etc rather than
> > the *pointer* itself, preferring to use "lsl" to get percpu data. You
> > could also imaging hiding things in the vector state somewhere if you
> > control your environment well enough).
> >
> Thats correct, problem is that you need some sort of hack like this on
> archs that otherwise would need syscall to get tid/access tls variable.
>
> On x64 and archs that have register for tls this could be implemented
> relatively easily.
>
> Kernel needs to allocate
>
> int running_cpu_for_tid[32768];
This does not scale. You're assuming the default task ("pid") number
limit, but this can be raised up to 512k (beyond that is impossible
because of PI/robust futex ABI).
> On context switch it atomically writes to this table
>
> running_cpu_for_tid[tid] = cpu;
>
> This table is read-only accessible from userspace as mmaped file.
There is a much simpler solution: use a per-cpu (rather than per-task)
page that contains the right value for the cpu. I believe vdso already
does something like this, no?
Rich
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
