[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200409132633.GD13078@willie-the-truck>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:26:34 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com, x86@...nel.org,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 21/26] arm64: Introduce asm/vdso/arch_timer.h
Hi Vincenzo,
Sorry, I was on holiday when you posted this and it slipped through the
cracks.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 03:37:23PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 03:43:40PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> >> The vDSO library should only include the necessary headers required for
> >> a userspace library (UAPI and a minimal set of kernel headers). To make
> >> this possible it is necessary to isolate from the kernel headers the
> >> common parts that are strictly necessary to build the library.
> >>
> >> Introduce asm/vdso/arch_timer.h to contain all the arm64 specific
> >> code. This allows to replace the second isb() in __arch_get_hw_counter()
> >> with a fake dependent stack read of the counter which improves the vdso
> >> library peformances of ~4.5%. Below the results of vdsotest [1] ran for
> >> 100 iterations.
> >
> > The subject seems to imply a non-functional change but as you read, it
> > gets a lot more complicated. Could you keep the functional change
> > separate from the header clean-up, maybe submit it as an independent
> > patch? And it shouldn't go in without Will's ack ;).
> >
>
> It is fine by me. I will repost the series with the required fixes and without
> this patch. This will give to me enough time to address Mark's comments as well
> and to Will to have a proper look.
Please can you post whatever is left at -rc1? I'll have a look then, but
let's stick to just moving code around rather than randomly changing it
at the same time, ok?
Thanks,
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists