On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> It is architectural problem. Each CPU must have its own IDT or GDT table.
> If (for real example) you'll use task gate for NMI, both NMIs are currently
> (AFAIK) delivered to both CPUs at same time. Both CPUs find in IDT that
> they should switch to task 0x1230. So one of them finds TSS 0x1230 (in GDT
> entry 0x1230 / 8) as not busy (busy is field in TSS GDT descriptor), marks
> it busy and starts executing in new context. But other one finds 0x1230 as
> busy. And fault during doublefault is triplefault. Which is hardwired to
> reset and we are where we were before...
This is not a problem itself -- each CPU may have a separate GDT and/or
IDT. We should not use task gates for NMIs but this still applies for
double faults.
> Well, Intel recommends 'Invalid TSS' exception to be handled through TSS
> too, for obvious reason that CPU state may be half-old and half-new...
We could set up a handler similar to the one for the double fault.
> But I'm not sure that all vendors handle TSS fault during doublefault
> correctly and I do not want to rely on that.
That would probably lead to a triple fault, but is it a real problem for
us? It is possible to set up a reliable double fault handler so the
'Invalid TSS' handler would likely get never ever invoked.
> So either each CPU must have its own IDT, pointing to different slots
> in GDT, or each CPU must have its own GDT... I preffer IDT, as having
> per-CPU GDT could create some really nasty problems (f.e. synchronizing
> LDT entries between CPUs) (*) (**).
Just as I wrote earlier...
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], PGP key available +
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
