From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 22 23:26:16 2003 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 7EC0737B401; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:26:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc11.attbi.com (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC7C43FB1; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:26:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([12.233.125.100]) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <20030623062615013008t91ie>; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 06:26:15 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA79778; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:26:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: deischen@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: threads@freebsd.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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 06:26:16 -0000 On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Igor Sysoev wrote: > > > > > > > > We can implement such scheme on x86: > > > > > > gs -> [ TP ] ---> [ TLS ] > > > [ struct kse_mailbox ] +-> [ struct kse_thr_mailbox ] > > > [ .km_curthread ] -+ > > > > > > When UTS would switch to the next thread it should set thread's TLS: > > > > > > kse_mailbox.km_curthread = NULL; > > > gs:[0] = next_thr_tls; > > > kse_mailbox.km_curthread = next_kse_thr_mailbox; > > > > yes and the last line is atomic.. But remember having a NULL curhtread > > pointer stops upcalls but it is not the ONLY thing that stops upcalls.. > > A flag TMF_NOUPCALLS (spelling?) in the mailbox will also inhibit any > > upcalls. 1:1 threads (BOUND) threads, (system scope threads?) set this > > bit, but they still can have a mailbox for other purposes. (e.g. setting > > mode flags and stuff). > > Yes, but we don't always have a current thread, so this method > doesn't work for all cases. Firstly, I think that all threads should HAVE mailboxen, even if we don't use them. If we are running in the UTS or the initial 'thread' before getting a 'kse' then it would be an error to access TLS. Do you disagree? > > > If you are talking about libthr when you say 1:1 then they > > have gs:0 pointing to an array of pointers each of which points to > > a thread structure.. (they have the same indirection, but there is no > > KSE mailbox at teh indirection point, just the pointer.) > > > > (in _setcurthread.c ) > > void *ldt_entries[MAXTHR]; > > (these are set to point to thread structures as they are needed > > and %gs:0 points to an entry in this array) > > > > There is a small race we must guard against when accessing TLS.. > > > > %gs-->KSE--->TLS > > > > however the thread can be preemted between any two machine instructions, > > and unless the TMF_NOUPCALLS bit is set, it may start executing again > > under a DIFFERENT KSE. > > > > this means that we can not do: > > > > lea gs:0, %esi > > movl (%esi),%esi > > > > to find the TLS as at teh time of the 2nd command, we may have been > > pre-empted and %gs may point to a different place.. > > > > HOWEVER ensuring that we get past teh gs and into the actual > > thread-specific stuff in one instruction, > > > > e.g. > > > > movl gs:0, %esi ;%esi now points to a thread-specific thing.. > > > > should get around this.. > > Since libpthread doesn't always have a current thread, we can't rely > on this. I think we should say that if there is no current thread there is no Thread -specific data.... > > -- > Dan Eischen > >