From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 3 14:29:13 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0CF616A4CE for ; Sat, 3 Apr 2004 14:29:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5447343D5A for ; Sat, 3 Apr 2004 14:29:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i33MT8tf024763; Sat, 3 Apr 2004 17:29:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 17:29:08 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com To: Julian Elischer In-Reply-To: <406F37F3.3050501@elischer.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 50188 for review X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 22:29:13 -0000 On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Julian Elischer wrote: > Daniel Eischen wrote: > > On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Doug Rabson wrote: > > > > > >>On Saturday 03 April 2004 19:22, Daniel Eischen wrote: > >> > >>>On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Doug Rabson wrote: > >>> > >>>>I was just wandering around the internet looking at the scenery and > >>>>I ended up here: > >>>>http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/i386-and-x86-64-Options.html. > >>> > >>>Neat. > >>> > >>> > >>>>This document describes a new options (which is not supported by > >>>>the compiler in current right now), -mno-tls-direct-seg-refs. This > >>>>looks like it will do everything we need for both i386 and amd64, > >>>>i.e. instead of code like: > >>>> > >>>> movl %gs:x@ntpoff, %eax > >>>> > >>>>it should generate: > >>>> > >>>> movl %gs:0, %eax > >>>> movl x@ntpoff(%eax), %eax > >>> > >>>That's what I thought the SUN ABI was supposed to do, no? > >>>Perhaps I should go back and read the TLS spec... > >> > >>The main difference, (for me anyway) is that the calling convention for > >>tls_get_addr in the sun abi is a standard stack-based convention. This > >>leads to bulky code sequences which are hard for the linker to > >>transform when it realises that it can change a reference from e.g. > >>global dynamic to local exec. > > > > > > Oh, I was really only thinking that the tls_get_addr function > > and everything else would be pretty much the same as the > > GNU convention, except that there would be one extra > > instruction for __thread references (like you show > > above). I think this is what we were going on from the > > start. > > > > > >>>>Although I'm still not quite convinced that we can't do the first > >>>>version with essentially zero cost for i386 at least. > >>> > >>>I think it might get messy trying to manage LDTs. Extra > >>>locking will be needed when you need to borrow them from > >>>other threads, and you need to make sure those other threads > >>>aren't running and aren't scope system. You might as well > >>>make a system call to continue the thread and let the > >>>kernel do all the work. > >> > >>Probably. If we can arrange to reduce the syscall cost somewhat (e.g. > >>with sysenter/sysexit instead of int $80), perhaps this still isn't too > >>much of a problem. I think that most programs should do far fewer > >>context switches than most other work. > > > > > > But everything else being equal, it's so much easier > > for the one extra instruction in the TLS reference. > > > > Talking with Peter, it may be feasible to use the kernel > to set %fs:0 to point to per-thread data as there is a very fast > way to make syscalls (12 clocks vs 300 clocks, or so he says) > so that leaves us only with problems on the x86. > The option above is what I thought we were going to do all along for x86 Right, me too :-) -- Dan Eischen