Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:50:31 +0100 From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thread Local Storage Message-ID: <200403292250.31315.dfr@nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10403291625210.15970-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10403291625210.15970-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 29 March 2004 22:26, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Doug Rabson wrote:
> > On Monday 29 March 2004 20:36, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Doug Rabson wrote:
> > > > I've been spending a bit of time recently familiarising myself
> > > > with this TLS stuff and trying out a few things. I've been
> > > > playing with rtld and I have a prototype patch which implements
> > > > enough TLS support to let a non-threaded program which uses
> > > > static TLS work. With a tiny bit more work I can have limited
> > > > support for dynamic TLS as well (not for dlopen'ed modules yet
> > > > though). Is there a p4 tree for this stuff yet? I'd like to
> > > > check in what I have sometime.
> > > >
> > > > I've also been looking at libpthread and I can see some
> > > > potential problems with it. Currently libpthread on i386 uses
> > > > %gs to point at a struct kcb which seems to be a per-kse
> > > > structure. This structure contains a pointer to a per-thread
> > > > struct tcb and this pointer is managed by the userland context
> > > > switch code. Other arches are similar, e.g. ia64 uses $tp to
> > > > point at struct kcb.
> > > >
> > > > The problem with TLS is that the i386 ABI needs %gs to point at
> > > > the TLS
> > >
> > > There are 2 different methods allowed for the i386 ABI.
> > > We want to use the other method in which there is an
> > > additional indirection. The current i386 libpthread
> > > stuff adheres to this method.
> >
> > Surely the GNU TLS ABI is preferable? It generates much smaller
> > code and needs many fewer relocations.
>
> No, we don't want an LDT for every thread and don't want
> to force a syscall for a thread switch.
But the code it generates is at least twice the size for dynamic TLS. It
seems that the GNU people have done a better job defining the TLS abi
for i386.
You don't need a syscall at thread switch if you do something like:
_thread_switch(...)
{
if (tcb doesn't have LDT entry) {
if (!free LDT entries)
steal LDT entry from non-running thread;
allocate LDT entry and point it at TLS goop for tcb.
}
load_gs(tcb's LDT sel);
...
}
I just have this feeling that the GNU ABI is going to get far better
testing and support in the future since thats what linux uses.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200403292250.31315.dfr>