Re: [RFC PATCH v1 11/31] ARC: Low level IRQ/Trap/Exception(non-MMU) Handling
From: Vineet Gupta <hidden>
Date: 2012-12-27 13:30:03
Also in:
lkml
On Thursday 27 December 2012 02:30 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On Friday 16 November 2012 10:28 AM, Al Viro wrote:quoted
quoted
+ ; --------- check for signals/restore-sigmask ------------ + bbit0 r9, TIF_SIGPENDING, chk_next_work + + ; save CALLEE Regs. + ; (i) If this signal causes coredump - full regfile needed + ; (ii) If signal is SIGTRAP/SIGSTOP, task is being traced thus + ; tracer might call PEEKUSR for a CALLEE reg + ; + ; NOTE: SP will grow up by size of CALLEE Reg-File + SAVE_CALLEE_SAVED_USER ; clobbers r12 + + ; save location of saved Callee Regs @ thread_struct->callee + GET_CURR_TASK_FIELD_PTR TASK_THREAD, r10 + st sp, [r10, THREAD_CALLEE_REG] + + bl @do_signal + + ; unwind SP for cheap discard of Callee saved Regs + DISCARD_CALLEE_SAVED_USERUh-oh... And what if tracer wanted to modify callee-saved regs?So the solution would be to either unconditionally restore all the 13 callee regs - or add additional state (struct thread) where ptrace makes a note that it wrote to a callee reg which is used here to conditional-ize the restore. Former is simpler to do - although it might ill-affect micro-benchmarks such as LMBench lat_sig. Anyhow correctness comes before optimization.
Havign coded above, I just couldn't accept the anti-optimization here. Is it absolute sin to take a look at current->ptrace != 0 in deciding whether to save/restore the regs. However that won't work for coredump case.