Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
  1. Aug 29, 2011
  2. Aug 22, 2011
  3. Aug 15, 2011
  4. Aug 12, 2011
  5. Aug 11, 2011
  6. Aug 09, 2011
  7. Jul 29, 2011
  8. Jul 27, 2011
  9. Feb 19, 2011
  10. Jan 11, 2011
    • Russ Cox's avatar
      make new code like old code · 1a81e38b
      Russ Cox authored
      Variable declarations at top of function,
      separate from initialization.
      
      Use == 0 instead of ! for checking pointers.
      
      Consistent spacing around {, *, casts.
      
      Declare 0-parameter functions as (void) not ().
      
      Integer valued functions return -1 on failure, 0 on success.
      1a81e38b
  11. Sep 13, 2010
  12. Aug 31, 2010
  13. Aug 30, 2010
  14. Aug 05, 2010
  15. Jul 23, 2010
  16. Jul 02, 2010
  17. Sep 02, 2009
  18. Aug 30, 2009
    • Russ Cox's avatar
      assorted fixes: · 48755214
      Russ Cox authored
       * rename c/cp to cpu/proc
       * rename cpu.context to cpu.scheduler
       * fix some comments
       * formatting for printout
      48755214
  19. May 30, 2009
    • rsc's avatar
      · 19333efb
      rsc authored
      Some proc cleanup, moving some of copyproc into allocproc.
      
      Also, an experiment: use "thread-local" storage for c and cp
      instead of the #define macro for curproc[cpu()].
      19333efb
  20. Mar 08, 2009
  21. Aug 21, 2008
  22. Oct 01, 2007
    • rsc's avatar
      · 943fd378
      rsc authored
      Incorporate new understanding of/with Intel SMP spec.
      
      Dropped cmpxchg in favor of xchg, to match lecture notes.
      
      Use xchg to release lock, for future protection and to
      keep gcc from acting clever.
      943fd378
  23. Sep 30, 2007
    • rsc's avatar
      · 9fd9f804
      rsc authored
      Re: why cpuid() in locking code?
      
      rtm wrote:
      > Why does acquire() call cpuid()? Why does release() call cpuid()?
      
      The cpuid in acquire is redundant with the cmpxchg, as you said.
      I have removed the cpuid from acquire.
      
      The cpuid in release is actually doing something important,
      but not on the hardware.  It keeps gcc from reordering the
      lock->locked assignment above the other two during optimization.
      (Not that current gcc -O2 would choose to do that, but it is allowed to.)
      I have replaced the cpuid in release with a "gcc barrier" that
      keeps gcc from moving things around but has no hardware effect.
      
      On a related note, I don't think the cpuid in mpmain is necessary,
      for the same reason that the cpuid wasn't needed in release.
      
      As to the question of whether
      
        acquire();
        x = protected;
        release();
      
      might read protected after release(), I still haven't convinced
      myself whether it can.  I'll put the cpuid back into release if
      we determine that it can.
      
      Russ
      9fd9f804
  24. Sep 27, 2007
    • rsc's avatar
      · ab08960f
      rsc authored
      Final word on the locking fiasco?
      
      Change pushcli / popcli so that they can never turn on
      interrupts unexpectedly.  That is, if interrupts are on,
      then pushcli(); popcli(); turns them off and back on, but
      if they are off to begin with, then pushcli(); popcli(); is
      a no-op.
      
      I think our fundamental mistake was having a primitive
      (release and then popcli nee spllo) that could turn
      interrupts on at unexpected moments instead of being
      explicit about when we want to start allowing interrupts.
      
      With the new semantics, all the manual fiddling of ncli
      to force interrupts off in certain sections goes away.
      In return, we must explicitly mark the places where
      we want to enable interrupts unconditionally, by calling sti().
      There is only one: inside the scheduler loop.
      ab08960f
    • rsc's avatar
      yank out stack overflow checking ugliness · c95bde81
      rsc authored
      c95bde81
    • rsc's avatar
      okay, that was long enough - revert · 4f74de0e
      rsc authored
      4f74de0e
    • rsc's avatar
      · ce2e7515
      rsc authored
      test: store curproc at top of stack
      
      I don't actually think this is worthwhile, but I figured
      I would check it in before reverting it, so that it can
      be in the revision history.
      
      Pros:
        * curproc doesn't need to turn on/off interrupts
        * scheduler doesn't have to edit curproc anymore
      
      Cons:
        * it's ugly
        * all the stack computation is more complicated.
        * it doesn't actually simplify anything but curproc,
          and even curproc is harder to follow.
      ce2e7515
    • rsc's avatar
      rename splhi/spllo to pushcli/popcli · 3807c1f2
      rsc authored
      3807c1f2
    • rsc's avatar
      use larger, allocated cpu stacks · 47212719
      rsc authored
      47212719
    • rsc's avatar
      · c8919e65
      rsc authored
      kernel SMP interruptibility fixes.
      
      Last year, right before I sent xv6 to the printer, I changed the
      SETGATE calls so that interrupts would be disabled on entry to
      interrupt handlers, and I added the nlock++ / nlock-- in trap()
      so that interrupts would stay disabled while the hw handlers
      (but not the syscall handler) did their work.  I did this because
      the kernel was otherwise causing Bochs to triple-fault in SMP
      mode, and time was short.
      
      Robert observed yesterday that something was keeping the SMP
      preemption user test from working.  It turned out that when I
      simplified the lapic code I swapped the order of two register
      writes that I didn't realize were order dependent.  I fixed that
      and then since I had everything paged in kept going and tried
      to figure out why you can't leave interrupts on during interrupt
      handlers.  There are a few issues.
      
      First, there must be some way to keep interrupts from "stacking
      up" and overflowing the stack.  Keeping interrupts off the whole
      time solves this problem -- even if the clock tick handler runs
      long enough that the next clock tick is waiting when it finishes,
      keeping interrupts off means that the handler runs all the way
      through the "iret" before the next handler begins.  This is not
      really a problem unless you are putting too many prints in trap
      -- if the OS is doing its job right, the handlers should run
      quickly and not stack up.
      
      Second, if xv6 had page faults, then it would be important to
      keep interrupts disabled between the start of the interrupt and
      the time that cr2 was read, to avoid a scenario like:
      
         p1 page faults [cr2 set to faulting address]
         p1 starts executing trapasm.S
         clock interrupt, p1 preempted, p2 starts executing
         p2 page faults [cr2 set to another faulting address]
         p2 starts, finishes fault handler
         p1 rescheduled, reads cr2, sees wrong fault address
      
      Alternately p1 could be rescheduled on the other cpu, in which
      case it would still see the wrong cr2.  That said, I think cr2
      is the only interrupt state that isn't pushed onto the interrupt
      stack atomically at fault time, and xv6 doesn't care.  (This isn't
      entirely hypothetical -- I debugged this problem on Plan 9.)
      
      Third, and this is the big one, it is not safe to call cpu()
      unless interrupts are disabled.  If interrupts are enabled then
      there is no guarantee that, between the time cpu() looks up the
      cpu id and the time that it the result gets used, the process
      has not been rescheduled to the other cpu.  For example, the
      very commonly-used expression curproc[cpu()] (aka the macro cp)
      can end up referring to the wrong proc: the code stores the
      result of cpu() in %eax, gets rescheduled to the other cpu at
      just the wrong instant, and then reads curproc[%eax].
      
      We use curproc[cpu()] to get the current process a LOT.  In that
      particular case, if we arranged for the current curproc entry
      to be addressed by %fs:0 and just use a different %fs on each
      CPU, then we could safely get at curproc even with interrupts
      disabled, since the read of %fs would be atomic with the read
      of %fs:0.  Alternately, we could have a curproc() function that
      disables interrupts while computing curproc[cpu()].  I've done
      that last one.
      
      Even in the current kernel, with interrupts off on entry to trap,
      interrupts are enabled inside release if there are no locks held.
      Also, the scheduler's idle loop must be interruptible at times
      so that the clock and disk interrupts (which might make processes
      runnable) can be handled.
      
      In addition to the rampant use of curproc[cpu()], this little
      snippet from acquire is wrong on smp:
      
        if(cpus[cpu()].nlock == 0)
          cli();
        cpus[cpu()].nlock++;
      
      because if interrupts are off then we might call cpu(), get
      rescheduled to a different cpu, look at cpus[oldcpu].nlock, and
      wrongly decide not to disable interrupts on the new cpu.  The
      fix is to always call cli().  But this is wrong too:
      
        if(holding(lock))
          panic("acquire");
        cli();
        cpus[cpu()].nlock++;
      
      because holding looks at cpu().  The fix is:
      
        cli();
        if(holding(lock))
          panic("acquire");
        cpus[cpu()].nlock++;
      
      I've done that, and I changed cpu() to complain the first time
      it gets called with interrupts disabled.  (It gets called too
      much to complain every time.)
      
      I added new functions splhi and spllo that are like acquire and
      release but without the locking:
      
        void
        splhi(void)
        {
          cli();
          cpus[cpu()].nsplhi++;
        }
      
        void
        spllo(void)
        {
          if(--cpus[cpu()].nsplhi == 0)
            sti();
        }
      
      and I've used those to protect other sections of code that refer
      to cpu() when interrupts would otherwise be disabled (basically
      just curproc and setupsegs).  I also use them in acquire/release
      and got rid of nlock.
      
      I'm not thrilled with the names, but I think the concept -- a
      counted cli/sti -- is sound.  Having them also replaces the
      nlock++/nlock-- in trap.c and main.c, which is nice.
      
      
      Final note: it's still not safe to enable interrupts in
      the middle of trap() between lapic_eoi and returning
      to user space.  I don't understand why, but we get a
      fault on pop %es because 0x10 is a bad segment
      descriptor (!) and then the fault faults trying to go into
      a new interrupt because 0x8 is a bad segment descriptor too!
      Triple fault.  I haven't debugged this yet.
      c8919e65
  25. Aug 28, 2007
    • rsc's avatar
      nits · c1b100e9
      rsc authored
      c1b100e9
Loading