Linux MIPS Architecture development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
To: "Jun Sun" <jsun@mvista.com>
Cc: "Daniel Jacobowitz" <dan@debian.org>,
	"MIPS/Linux List \(SGI\)" <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: FP emulator patch
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:33:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <01c701c126a3$7c5bcbc0$0deca8c0@Ulysses> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3B7C3C75.4AB05B13@mvista.com

> > We've had a lot of messages crossing here, but please
> > explain yourself here why clearing used_math helps in
> > this case.  If, as has been proposed, the current
> > thread does not own the FPU, and thus CU1 is not
> > enabled, the FPU switch mechanism should kick in
> > during the signal handler regardless. The signal
> > handler will inherit the thread's FPU state from
> > the thread context, and will muck with it, but
> > if, as has been noted, the sigcontext has
> > been loaded from the thread context before
> > the handler is dispatched, and is restored after
> > the handler executes, we're fine.  The only thing
> > I can see that clearing used_math would achieve
> > would be to guarantee the signal handler a virgin
> > FPU context.
>
> Yes, that is somewhat the purpose.  Essentially we want to see, at the
> beginning of a signal handler execution, the process appears to have not
used
> FPU at all.
>
> This requirement might be a must, because whether clearing
current->used_math
> bit determine which patch we will take in the do_cpu(), when signal
handler
> uses FPU for the first time.  See the code below.
>
>         if (current->used_math) {               /* Using the FPU again.
*/
>                 lazy_fpu_switch(last_task_used_math);
>         } else {                                /* First time FPU user.
*/
>                 init_fpu();
>                 current->used_math = 1;
>         }
>         last_task_used_math = current;
>
> Clearly the second path is logically the correct one.

Not really.  See below.

> BTW, do I see another bug here in do_cpu()?  It seems that before we call
> init_fpu(), we should check last_task_used_math.  If it is not NULL, we
should
> save the FP state to the last_task_used_math.  Hmm, strange ...

Strange indeed.  And note that if the code were correct, your
surmise about the init_fpu() path being "logically the correct"
one would no longer be true - we'd be saving the FPU state of
the current process for no good reason.

The more I look at the FPU management code, the more I marvel
that it even gives an appearance of working...

            Regards,

            Kevin K.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
To: Jun Sun <jsun@mvista.com>
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>,
	"MIPS/Linux List (SGI)" <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: FP emulator patch
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:33:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <01c701c126a3$7c5bcbc0$0deca8c0@Ulysses> (raw)
Message-ID: <20010816223331.9pppw349H36pT2Ns5GUU2OtXW430n8lvPEjnPYDe0mI@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3B7C3C75.4AB05B13@mvista.com

> > We've had a lot of messages crossing here, but please
> > explain yourself here why clearing used_math helps in
> > this case.  If, as has been proposed, the current
> > thread does not own the FPU, and thus CU1 is not
> > enabled, the FPU switch mechanism should kick in
> > during the signal handler regardless. The signal
> > handler will inherit the thread's FPU state from
> > the thread context, and will muck with it, but
> > if, as has been noted, the sigcontext has
> > been loaded from the thread context before
> > the handler is dispatched, and is restored after
> > the handler executes, we're fine.  The only thing
> > I can see that clearing used_math would achieve
> > would be to guarantee the signal handler a virgin
> > FPU context.
>
> Yes, that is somewhat the purpose.  Essentially we want to see, at the
> beginning of a signal handler execution, the process appears to have not
used
> FPU at all.
>
> This requirement might be a must, because whether clearing
current->used_math
> bit determine which patch we will take in the do_cpu(), when signal
handler
> uses FPU for the first time.  See the code below.
>
>         if (current->used_math) {               /* Using the FPU again.
*/
>                 lazy_fpu_switch(last_task_used_math);
>         } else {                                /* First time FPU user.
*/
>                 init_fpu();
>                 current->used_math = 1;
>         }
>         last_task_used_math = current;
>
> Clearly the second path is logically the correct one.

Not really.  See below.

> BTW, do I see another bug here in do_cpu()?  It seems that before we call
> init_fpu(), we should check last_task_used_math.  If it is not NULL, we
should
> save the FP state to the last_task_used_math.  Hmm, strange ...

Strange indeed.  And note that if the code were correct, your
surmise about the init_fpu() path being "logically the correct"
one would no longer be true - we'd be saving the FPU state of
the current process for no good reason.

The more I look at the FPU management code, the more I marvel
that it even gives an appearance of working...

            Regards,

            Kevin K.

  reply	other threads:[~2001-08-16 22:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-08-16 18:23 FP emulator patch Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16 18:23 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16 18:49 ` Pete Popov
2001-08-16 18:53 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2001-08-16 19:15   ` Jun Sun
2001-08-16 20:40     ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16 20:40       ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16 21:34       ` Jun Sun
2001-08-16 22:33         ` Kevin D. Kissell [this message]
2001-08-16 22:33           ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16 22:38           ` Pete Popov
2001-08-16 22:37         ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2001-08-16 23:12           ` Jun Sun
2001-08-16 23:38           ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16 23:38             ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16 19:20 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16 19:20   ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16 20:20   ` Jun Sun
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-10 11:55 Carsten Langgaard
2001-08-16 22:58 Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16 22:58 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16 23:14 ` Jun Sun
2001-08-16 23:46   ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16 23:46     ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-15 12:53 Carsten Langgaard
2001-08-15 18:06 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2001-08-16  0:05   ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16  0:05     ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16  4:20   ` Atsushi Nemoto
2001-08-16 12:35     ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16 12:35       ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-08-16  7:07   ` Carsten Langgaard
2001-08-16  4:35 ` Atsushi Nemoto

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='01c701c126a3$7c5bcbc0$0deca8c0@Ulysses' \
    --to=kevink@mips.com \
    --cc=dan@debian.org \
    --cc=jsun@mvista.com \
    --cc=linux-mips@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox