Message-ID: <20120229093436.GA2077@linaro.org>
Date:	Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:34:36 +0000
From:	Dave Martin <dave.martin@...aro.org>
To:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
Cc:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
	"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-WIP 01/13] xen/arm: use r12 to pass the hypercall number
 to the hypervisor

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:28:29PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 10:20 +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 07:33:39PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 18:03 +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > > > > Since we support only ARMv7+ there are "T2" and "T3" encodings available
> > > > > > which do allow direct mov of an immediate into R12, but are 32 bit Thumb
> > > > > > instructions.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Should we use r7 instead to maximise instruction density for Thumb code?
> > > > > 
> > > > > The difference seems trivial when put into context, even if you code a
> > > > > special Thumb version of the code to maximise density (the Thumb-2 code
> > > > > which gets built from assembler in the kernel is very suboptimal in
> > > > > size, but there simply isn't a high proportion of asm code in the kernel
> > > > > anyway.)  I wouldn't consider the ARM/Thumb differences as an important
> > > > > factor when deciding on a register.
> > > > 
> > > > OK, that's useful information. thanks.
> > > > 
> > > > > One argument for _not_ using r12 for this purpose is that it is then
> > > > > harder to put a generic "HVC" function (analogous to the "syscall"
> > > > > syscall) out-of-line, since r12 could get destroyed by the call.
> > > > 
> > > > For an out of line syscall(2) wouldn't the syscall number either be in a
> > > > standard C calling convention argument register or on the stack when the
> > > > function was called, since it is just a normal argument at that point?
> > > > As you point out it cannot be passed in r12 (and could never be, due to
> > > > the clobbering).
> > > > 
> > > > The syscall function itself would have to move the arguments and syscall
> > > > nr etc around before issuing the syscall.
> > > > 
> > > > I think the same is true of a similar hypercall(2)
> > > > 
> > > > > If you don't think you will ever care about putting HVC out of line
> > > > > though, it may not matter.
> > > 
> > > If you have both inline and out-of-line hypercalls, it's hard to ensure
> > > that you never have to shuffle the registers in either case.
> > 
> > Agreed.
> > 
> > I think we want to optimise for the inline case since those are the
> > majority.
> 
> They are not just the majority, all of them are static inline at the
> moment, even on x86 (where the number of hypercalls is much higher).
> 
> So yes, we should optimize for the inline case.
> 
> 
> > The only non-inline case is the special "privcmd ioctl" which is the
> > mechanism that allows the Xen toolstack to make hypercalls. It's
> > somewhat akin to syscall(2). By the time you get to it you will already
> > have done a system call for the ioctl, pulled the arguments from the
> > ioctl argument structure etc, plus such hypercalls are not really
> > performance critical.
> 
> Even the privcmd hypercall (privcmd_call) is a static inline function,
> it is just that at the moment there is only one caller :)
> 
> 
> > > Shuffling can be reduced but only at the expense of strange argument
> > > ordering in some cases when calling from C -- the complexity is probably
> > > not worth it.  Linux doesn't bother for its own syscalls.
> > > 
> > > Note that even in assembler, a branch from one section to a label in
> > > another section may cause r12 to get destroyed, so you will need to be
> > > careful about how you code the hypervisor trap handler.  However, this
> > > is not different from coding exception handlers in general, so I don't
> > > know that it constitutes a conclusive argument on its own.
> > 
> > We are happy to arrange that this doesn't occur on our trap entry paths,
> > at least until the guest register state has been saved. Currently the
> > hypercall dispatcher is in C and gets r12 from the on-stack saved state.
> > We will likely eventually optimise the hypercall path directly in ASM
> > and in that case we are happy to take steps to ensure we don't clobber
> > r12 before we need it.
> 
> Yes, I don't think this should be an issue.

Fair enough.

> > > My instinctive preference would therefore be for r7 (which also seems to
> > > be good enough for Linux syscalls) -- but it really depends how many
> > > arguments you expect to need to support.
> > 
> > Apparently r7 is the frame pointer for gcc in thumb mode which I think
> > is a good reason to avoid it.
> > 
> > We currently have some 5 argument hypercalls and there have been
> > occasional suggestions for interfaces which use 6 -- although none of
> > them have come to reality.
>  
> I don't have a very strong opinion on which register we should use, but
> I would like to avoid r7 if it is already actively used by gcc.

But there is no framepointer for Thumb-2 code (?)

> The fact that r12 can be destroyed so easily is actually a good argument
> for using it because it means it is less likely to contain useful data
> that needs to be saved/restored by gcc.

That's a fair point.

Cheers
---Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists