[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5542D730.2050903@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 21:30:24 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Fr馘駻ic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, X86 <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Subject: context tracking vs. syscall_trace_leave & do_notify_resume loop
Andy pointed out to me something I should have seen earlier: both
syscall_trace_leave and do_notify_resume call both user_exit()
and user_enter(), which has the potential to greatly increase the
cost of context tracking.
I believe (though it is hard to know for sure) there are legitimate
reasons why there is a loop around syscall_trace_leave and
do_notify_resume, but I strongly suspect the context tracking code
does not need to be in that loop.
I suspect it would be possible to stick a call to a new function
(return_to_user ?) right after the DISABLE_INTERRUPTS below, which
could be used to do the context tracking user_enter just once, and
later on also to load the user FPU context (patches I have sitting
around).
syscall_return:
/* The IRETQ could re-enable interrupts: */
DISABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_ANY)
TRACE_IRQS_IRETQ
Andy, Denys, do you guys see any issues with that idea?
I realize that would mean a RESTORE_EXTRA_REGS after that call
to return_to_user(), but it looks like that could be achieved
without making the code any worse than it already is :)
--
All rights reversed
--
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