From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jun 19 22:08:53 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 0028937B401; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id DCA7F43FE3; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h5K58kXh000586;
	Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>
In-Reply-To: <20030620041234.GA28472@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10306200105140.23-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: threads@freebsd.org
cc: davidxu@freebsd.org
cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Subject: Re: Implementing TLS: step 1
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:08:53 -0000

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 11:57:04PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > 
> > I'm not too sure about the kernel code.  If you have KSEs
> > working for libthr, then I assume there is very little extra
> > kernel code needed.  You do need to have get_mcontext() and
> > set_mcontext() implemented in machdep.c, though.  It looks
> > like you do (although nothing is done with clear_ret in
> > get_mcontext()).
> 
> Yes, {g|s}et_mcontext() are implemented, as is makecontext(3).
> 
> We cannot do anything with clear_ret, because it's based on
> assumptions that don't hold in ia64.

How do return values from syscalls get passed back?

> BTW: there's no race that can't be plugged if TP doesn't point
> to the mailbox. All we need is an atomic compare-exchange and
> a retry loop...

Ok, the only problem might be something being deallocated
out from under you.  For instance, a KSE goes away (gets
deallocated) while your thread is continued on another
KSE and you are still dereferencing something that may no
longer be valid.

-- 
Dan Eischen