This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi! > >> >>>> It should be noted that there can be only one rseq TLS area registered per > >> >>>> thread, > >> >>>> which can then be used by many libraries and by the executable, so this is a > >> >>>> process-wide (per-thread) resource that we need to manage carefully. > >> >>> > >> >>> Is it possible to resize the area after thread creation, perhaps even > >> >>> from other threads? > >> >> > >> >> I'm not sure why we would want to resize it. The per-thread area is fixed-size. > >> >> Its layout is here: include/uapi/linux/rseq.h: struct rseq > >> > > >> > Looks I was mistaken and this is very similar to the robust mutex list. > >> > > >> > Should we treat it the same way? Always allocate it for each new thread > >> > and register it with the kernel? > >> > >> That would be an efficient way to do it, indeed. There is very little > >> performance overhead to have rseq registered for all threads, whether or > >> not they intend to run rseq critical sections. > > > > People with slow / low memory machines would prefer not to see > > overhead they don't need... > > In terms of memory usage, if people don't want the extra few bytes of memory > used by rseq in the kernel, they should use CONFIG_RSEQ=n. > > In terms of overhead, let's have a closer look at what it means: when a thread > is registered to rseq, but does not enter rseq critical sections, only this > extra work is done by the kernel: > > - rseq_preempt(): on preemption, the scheduler sets the TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME thread > flag, so rseq_handle_notify_resume() can check whether it's in a rseq critical > section when returning to user-space, > - rseq_signal_deliver(): on signal delivery, rseq_handle_notify_resume() checks > whether it's in a rseq critical section, > - rseq_migrate: on migration, the scheduler sets TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME as well, Yes, this is not likely to be noticeable. But the proposal wanted to add a syscall to thread creation, right? And I believe that may be noticeable. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |