Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:19:29 +0100 From: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@ulyssis.org> To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net>, rdivacky@freebsd.org, kib@freebsd.org, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 2.6.16 for linuxulator & 7.0 release Message-ID: <200703191819.31766.tijl@ulyssis.org> In-Reply-To: <200703191213.31197.jkim@FreeBSD.org> References: <20070316120038.2iizia24mc4wcw8s@webmail.leidinger.net> <200703171429.25551.tijl@ulyssis.org> <200703191213.31197.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 19 March 2007 17:13:28 Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Saturday 17 March 2007 09:29 am, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > > On Friday 16 March 2007 12:00:38 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > > In p4 we have the futex/TLS stuff for amd64 but because of the > > > futexes not completely right part it is not committed to current > > > yet. As we already have the futex and TLS stuff for i386 on a > > > similar level in current, I would say we should go ahead and sync > > > the amd64 stuff. It is not used by default, so we don't break > > > existing linux stuff and we get the benefit of more people being > > > able to have a look at it and play with it. So what are your > > > opinions, shall we give jkim@ the green light to MFp4 the > > > futex/TLS stuff? > > > > You should let an amd64 guru review the tls part in imho. I don't > > think you can remove these lines for instance: (from > > linuxolator-p4.diff) > > > > --- sys/amd64/amd64/cpu_switch.S.orig > > +++ sys/amd64/amd64/cpu_switch.S > > @@ -104,11 +104,12 @@ > > testl $PCB_32BIT,PCB_FLAGS(%r8) > > jz 1f /* no, skip over */ > > > > - /* Save segment selector numbers */ > > - movl %ds,PCB_DS(%r8) > > - movl %es,PCB_ES(%r8) > > - movl %fs,PCB_FS(%r8) > > [...] > > - /* Restore segment selector numbers */ > > - movl PCB_DS(%r8),%ds > > - movl PCB_ES(%r8),%es > > - movl PCB_FS(%r8),%fs > > Actually it was dead code, i.e., PCB_32BIT flag was never set from > anywhere at all. I believe it was part of peter's experiment, which > was never materialized: > > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200405162243.i4GMhvhh037147 Ah, thanks for clearing this up. So if I understand this correctly, %fs is never preserved right? That's one big cause of trouble for win32 programs then. That log entry mentions to do it ``at user<->kernel transition''; that's where it happens in the i386 kernel. Those 3 segment registers are pushed on the stack there (in exception.s). Could something similar be done on amd64 then?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200703191819.31766.tijl>