[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA-4+jcTvve0EBxHrSuQXmHcRP3KvsUggrs9A_40BAFqLDkOyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:55:15 +0900
From: Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: musl without atomic instructions?
2016-03-14 11:13 GMT+09:00 Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>:
> IMO a vdso function should be added that makes the syscall, rather
> than having libc call the syscall directly; this would allow the
> kernel to automatically provide a better implementation in the future
> without the need to rebuild applications. Using a syscall for this is
> very slow. Working with kernel people to propose such a thing (or even
> implementing it and submitting kernel patches) is certainly one option
> for something to add to a GSoC project proposal to make it more
> substantial.
Well, it seems that I don't really understand vDSO.
My current understanding is, vDSO make it possible that:
1. programs targeting without-A processors use syscalls on without-A
processors, and
2. the programs use atomic instructions on with-A processors. (no
interruption, no context switching!)
(3. programs targeting with-A processors runs normally, without
calling such vDSO function)
Is it correct? If so, it would be really nice.
--
Masanori Ogino
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
