[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140528114438.GF15222@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 12:44:38 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Larry Bassel <larry.bassel@...aro.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"khilman@...aro.org" <khilman@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] arm64: enable context tracking
Hi Larry,
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 07:56:13PM +0100, Larry Bassel wrote:
> Make calls to ct_user_enter when the kernel is exited
> and ct_user_exit when the kernel is entered (in el0_da,
> el0_ia, el0_svc, el0_irq and all of the "error" paths).
>
> These macros expand to function calls which will only work
> properly if el0_sync and related code has been rearranged
> (in a previous patch of this series).
>
> The calls to ct_user_exit are made after hw debugging has been
> enabled (enable_dbg_and_irq).
>
> The call to ct_user_enter is made at the beginning of the
> kernel_exit macro.
>
> This patch is based on earlier work by Kevin Hilman.
> Save/restore optimizations were also done by Kevin.
Apologies if we've discussed this before (it rings a bell), but why are we
penalising the fast syscall path with this? Shouldn't TIF_NOHZ contribute to
out _TIF_WORK_MASK, then we could do the tracking on the syscall slow path?
I think that would tidy up your mov into x19 too.
Also -- how do you track ret_from_fork in the child with these patches?
Will
--
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