Am 05.10.2010 15:15, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Hi,
>> quite a few limitations and complications of using Linux services over
>> non-Linux domains relate to potentially invalid "current" and
>> "thread_info". The non-Linux domain could maintain their own kernel
>> stacks while Linux tend to derive current and thread_info from the stack
>> pointer. This is not an issue anymore on x86-64 (both states are stored
>> in per-cpu variables) but other archs (e.g. x86-32 or ARM) still use the
>> stack and may continue to do so.
>> I just looked into this thing again as I'm evaluating ways to exploit
>> the kernel's tracing framework also under Xenomai. Unfortunately, it
>> does a lot of fiddling with preempt_count and need_resched, so patching
>> it for Xenomai use would become a maintenance nightmare.
>> An alternative, also for other use cases like kgdb and probably perf, is
>> to get rid of our dependency on home-grown stacks. I think we are on
>> that way already as in-kernel skins have been deprecated. The only
>> remaining user after them will be RTDM driver tasks. But I think those
>> could simply become in-kernel shadows of kthreads which would bind their
>> stacks to what Linux provides. Moreover, Xenomai could start updating
>> "current" and "thread_info" on context switches (unless this already
>> happens implicitly). That would give us proper contexts for system-level
>> tracing and profiling.
>> My key question is currently if and how much of this could be realized
>> in 2.6. Could we drop in-kernel skins in that version? If not, what
>> about disabling them by default, converting RTDM tasks to a
>> kthread-based approach, and enabling tracing etc. only in that case?
>> However, this might be a bit fragile unless we can establish
>> compile-time or run-time requirements negotiation between Adeos and its
>> users (Xenomai) about the stack model.
> A stupid question: why not make things the other way around: patch the
> current and current_thread_info functions to be made I-pipe aware and
> use an "ipipe_current" pointer to the current thread task_struct. Of
> course, there are places where the current or current_thread_info macros
> are implemented in assembly, so it may be not simple as it sounds, but
> it would allow to keep 128 Kb stacks if we want. This also means that we
> would have to put a task_struct at the bottom of every Xenomai task.

First of all, overhead vs. maintenance. Either every access to
preempt_count() would require a check for the current domain and its
foreign stack flag, or I would have to patch dozens (if that is enough)
of code sites in the tracer framework.

And, second, this would prevent aligning current/thread_info with the
currently running shadow, the nice add-on I would like to gain with this


Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to