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.
next prev parent 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