[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150812131302.GA21542@lerouge>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:13:04 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86/asm/entry/64: Migrate error and IRQ exit work
to C and remove old assembly code
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 03:59:37PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 03:25:04PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> Can you explain to me what context tracking does that rcu_irq_enter
> >> and vtime_account_irq_enter don't do that's expensive? Frankly, I'd
> >> rather drop everything except the context tracking callback.
> >
> > Irqs have their own hooks in the generic code. irq_enter() and irq_exit().
> > And those take care of RCU and time accounting already. So arch code really
> > doesn't need to care about that.
>
> I'd love to have irq_enter_from_user and irq_enter_from_kernel instead.
I don't get why we need that. Vtime internals already keeps track of where we
are. Again mixing up hard and soft tracking is asking for troubles.
>
> >
> > context tracking exists for the sole purpose of tracking states that don't
> > have generic hooks. Those are syscalls and exceptions.
> >
> > Besides, rcu_user_exit() is more costly than rcu_irq_enter() which have been
> > designed for the very purpose of providing a fast RCU tracking for non sleepable
> > code (which needs rcu_user_exit()).
> >
>
> So rcu_user_exit is slower because it's okay to sleep after calling it?
>
> Would it be possible to defer the overhead until we actually try to
> sleep rather than doing it on entry? (I have no idea what's going on
> under the hood.)
That's a question for Paul.
> Anyway, irq_enter_from_user would solve this problem completely.
How?
> >
> > I've been thinking about pushing down syscalls and exceptions to generic
> > handlers. It might work for syscalls btw. But many exceptions have only
> > arch handlers, or significant amount of work is done on the arch level
> > which might make use of RCU (eg: breakpoint handlers on x86).
>
> I'm trying to port the meat of the x86 syscall code to C. Maybe the
> result will generalize. The exit code is already in C (in -tip).
But please don't change such semantics along the way, it really doesn't help
to review the x86 low level changes if it's mixed up with fundamental context
tracking changes.
--
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