lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/entry/64: Remove duplicate syscall table for fast path
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Instead of using a duplicate syscall table for the fast path, create stubs for
>>> the syscalls that need pt_regs that save the extra registers if a flag for the
>>> slow path is not set.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
>>> To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
>>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
>>> Cc: Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Applies on top of Andy's syscall cleanup series.
>>
>> A couple questions:
>>
>>> @@ -306,15 +306,37 @@ END(entry_SYSCALL_64)
>>>
>>> ENTRY(stub_ptregs_64)
>>> /*
>>> - * Syscalls marked as needing ptregs that go through the fast path
>>> - * land here. We transfer to the slow path.
>>> + * Syscalls marked as needing ptregs land here.
>>> + * If we are on the fast path, we need to save the extra regs.
>>> + * If we are on the slow path, the extra regs are already saved.
>>> */
>>> - DISABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_NONE)
>>> - TRACE_IRQS_OFF
>>> - addq $8, %rsp
>>> - jmp entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path
>>> + movq PER_CPU_VAR(cpu_current_top_of_stack), %r10
>>> + testl $TS_SLOWPATH, ASM_THREAD_INFO(TI_status, %r10, 0)
>>> + jnz 1f
>>
>> OK (but see below), but why not do:
>>
>> addq $8, %rsp
>> jmp entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path
>
> I've always been adverse to doing things like that because it breaks
> call/return branch prediction.

I'd agree with you there except that the syscalls in question really
don't matter for performance enough that we should worry about a
handful of cycles from a return misprediction. We're still avoiding
IRET regardless (to the extent possible), and that was always the
major factor.

> Also, are there any side effects to calling enter_from_user_mode()
> more than once?

A warning that invariants are broken if you have an appropriately
configured kernel.

>
>> here instead of the stack munging below?
>>
>>> + subq $SIZEOF_PTREGS, %r10
>>> + SAVE_EXTRA_REGS base=r10
>>> + movq %r10, %rbx
>>> + call *%rax
>>> + movq %rbx, %r10
>>> + RESTORE_EXTRA_REGS base=r10
>>> + ret
>>> +1:
>>> + jmp *%rax
>>> END(stub_ptregs_64)
>
> After some thought, that can be simplified. It's only executed on the
> fast path, so pt_regs is at 8(%rsp).
>
>> Also, can we not get away with keying off rip or rsp instead of
>> ti->status? That should be faster and less magical IMO.
>
> Checking if the return address is the instruction after the fast path
> dispatch would work.
>
> Simplified version:
> ENTRY(stub_ptregs_64)
> cmpl $fast_path_return, (%rsp)

Does that instruction actually work the way you want it to? (Does it
link?) I think you might need to use leaq the way I did in my patch.

> jne 1f
> SAVE_EXTRA_REGS offset=8
> call *%rax
> RESTORE_EXTRA_REGS offset=8
> ret
> 1:
> jmp *%rax
> END(stub_ptregs_64)

This'll work, I think, but I still think I prefer keeping as much
complexity as possible in the slow path. I could be convinced
otherwise, though -- this variant is reasonably clean.

--Andy


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-09 22:41    [W:0.095 / U:4.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site