Re: Using %cr2 to reference "current"

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Especially on x86 chips.
>
> Well so far I've found one laptop that eats %cr2 on APM calls, and we have
> some mystery cases.

Well, APM is going away, and it should be easy enough to work around it
(and I don't _think_ you can reasonably do the same in ACPI or SMM: SMM
will save the whole CPU state and has to do that anyway, and ACPI doesn't
actually get to touch things like %cr2).

So I'd be more nervous about future CPU's just not having the register
writable (or having only parts of it, or..)

> Peter's suggestion of using %fs or %gs looks more
> promising at the moment

The problem with using a segment register is that then you have to
save/restore it over system calls - pretty much whether the call needs it
or not. Ie you can pretty much _guarantee_ that any system call will be
slowed down by something on the order of 10-15 cycles (on a good day, some
CPU's are slower at it). Same goes for task switch etc.

Which is why I'd much rather just color using the high bits of %esp, and
spend a few more cycles inside "get_current()". I can guarantee you that
it won't slow down paths that don't even need current at all (unlike the
segment register approach), and even the paths that _do_ need current will
only be ~5 cycles slower (plus possible the cache miss of doing the
function call, but the call-site itself will actually be slightly smaller
than the current in-lined 32-bit immediate and "andl").

Using high bits of %esp has zero impact on task-switch, and makes
"get_current" interrupt safe (ie switching tasks is totally atomic, as
it's the one single "movl ..,%esp" instruction that does the real switch
as far as the kernel is concerned).

It does require using an order-2 allocation, which the current VM will
allow anyway, but which is obviously nastier than an order-1.

		Linus