Hi Vasily,
I see that for different ‘syscalls' muslc uses different routes but with the same end. For example, SYS_ioctl from __stdout_write uses __syscall, provided by libmuslc/arch/<arch>/syscall_arch.h (implemented as CALL_SYSINFO). In the same time, syscall_cp function from __stdio_write is implemented inside libmuslc/src/internal/<arch>/syscall.s which uses __sysinfo in turn. So, that question is why? The reason all syscalls are directed through __sysinfo is that the 'service' that implements our syscalls is frequently ourselves (for example libsel4muslcsys). However, this service is C code that would also like to use parts of a C library. If muslc called directly into mulscsys then there would be a circular build dependency, having a late binding through __sysinfo resolves this. The second question is about the kernel. Now I am using static configuration of TLB in kerne: I have one region for rootserver aligned to 2MB, and one region for boot info page (also aligned). Thus, I do not have tlb traps since everything is in the TLB. In future, of course, I should add a processing of TLB misses somewhere in the plat/arch part of kernel. I am not familiar with memory support in seL4 yet, is there any syscall for delivery tlb traps? (I see nothing similar) Is there any check inside, for example, SEND call, about a presence of page in TLB? Our current architectures (arm and x86) have hardware loaded TLBs and so this is a non issue for them. I am not sure how software loaded TLBs would best be supported on seL4. Unfortunately the best person to answer this, Dr Kevin Elphinstone, is away at the moment. Adrian ________________________________ The information in this e-mail may be confidential and subject to legal professional privilege and/or copyright. National ICT Australia Limited accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments.
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://sel4.systems/lists/listinfo/devel
