lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] powerpc/32: Clear volatile regs on syscall exit
Hi!

On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:29:55AM +0100, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 05:27:39PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 09:48:09PM +0100, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 06:11:36PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > > > + /* Zero volatile regs that may contain sensitive kernel data */
> > > > + li r0,0
> > > > + li r4,0
> > > > + li r5,0
> > > > + li r6,0
> > > > + li r7,0
> > > > + li r8,0
> > > > + li r9,0
> > > > + li r10,0
> > > > + li r11,0
> > > > + li r12,0
> > > > + mtctr r0
> > > > + mtxer r0
> > >
> > > Here, I'm almost sure that on some processors, it would be better to
> > > separate mtctr form mtxer. mtxer is typically very expensive (pipeline
> > > flush) but I don't know what's the best ordering for the average core.
> >
> > mtxer is cheaper than mtctr on many cores :-)
>
> We're speaking of 32 bit here I believe;

32-bit userland, yes. Which runs fine on non-ancient cores, too.

> on my (admittedly old) paper
> copy of PowerPC 604 user's manual, I read in a footnote:
>
> "The mtspr (XER) instruction causes instructions to be flushed when it
> executes."

And the 604 has a trivial depth pipeline anyway.

> I know there are probably very few 604 left in the field, but in this
> case mtspr(xer) looks very much like a superset of isync.

It hasn't been like that for decades. On the 750 mtxer was execution
synchronised only already, for example.

> I also just had a look at the documentation of a more widespread core:
>
> https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/reference-manual/MPC7450UM.pdf
>
> and mtspr(xer) is marked as execution and refetch serialized, actually
> it is the only instruction to have both.

This looks like a late addition (it messes up the table, for example,
being put after "mtspr (other)"). It also is different from 7400 and
750 and everything else. A late bugfix? Curious :-)

> Maybe there is a subtle difference between "refetch serialization" and
> "pipeline flush", but in this case please educate me.

There is a subtle difference, but it goes the other way: refetch
serialisation doesn't stop fetch / flush everything after it, only when
the instruction completes it rejects everything after it. So it can
waste a bit more :-)

> Besides that the back to back mtctr/mtspr(xer) may limit instruction
> decoding and issuing bandwidth.

It doesn't limit decode or dispatch (not issue fwiw) bandwidth on any
core I have ever heard of.

> I'd rather move one of them up by a few
> lines since they can only go to one of the execution units on some
> (or even most?) cores. This was my main point initially.

I think it is much more beneficial to *not* do these insns than to
shift them back and forth a cycle.


Segher

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-02-24 13:58    [W:0.056 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site