[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251201102633.17a99afc@pumpkin>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 10:26:33 +0000
From: david laight <david.laight@...box.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, chris@...kel.net,
jcmvbkbc@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, macro@...am.me.uk,
charlie@...osinc.com, deller@....de, ldv@...ace.io, rostedt@...dmis.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: Avoid memcpy() for syscall_get_arguments()
On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 10:13:54 +0000
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 08:36:30PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> > Do not use memcpy() to extract syscall arguments from struct pt_regs
> > but rather just perform direct assignments.
> >
> > The performance benchmarks with Generic Entry patch[1] with audit on
> > from perf bench basic syscall on kunpeng920 gives roughly a 1%
> > performance uplift and also aligns the implementation with
> > x86 and RISC-V.
> >
> > | Metric | W/O this patch | With this patch | Change |
> > | ---------- | -------------- | --------------- | --------- |
> > | Total time | 2.241 [sec] | 2.211 [sec] | ↓1.36% |
> > | usecs/op | 0.224157 | 0.221146 | ↓1.36% |
> > | ops/sec | 4,461,157 | 4,501,409 | ↑0.9% |
> >
> > Before:
> > <syscall_get_arguments.constprop.0>:
> > aa0103e2 mov x2, x1
> > 91002003 add x3, x0, #0x8
> > f9408804 ldr x4, [x0, #272]
> > f8008444 str x4, [x2], #8
> > a9409404 ldp x4, x5, [x0, #8]
> > a9009424 stp x4, x5, [x1, #8]
> > a9418400 ldp x0, x1, [x0, #24]
> > a9010440 stp x0, x1, [x2, #16]
> > f9401060 ldr x0, [x3, #32]
> > f9001040 str x0, [x2, #32]
> > d65f03c0 ret
> > d503201f nop
> >
> > After:
> > a9408e82 ldp x2, x3, [x20, #8]
> > 2a1603e0 mov w0, w22
> > f9400e84 ldr x4, [x20, #24]
> > f9408a81 ldr x1, [x20, #272]
> > 9401c4ba bl ffff800080215ca8 <__audit_syscall_entry>
>
> It's probably worth noting that __audit_syscall_entry() only takes 4
> syscall arguments, and hence the compiler has elided the copy of
> regs->regs[4] and regs->regs[5], which it apparently couldn't manage
> before.
Hasn't it actually inlined it and completely optimised away the regs[] array?
It looks (from the asm) as though syscall_get_arguments() is followed by:
fn(regs[0], regs[1], regs[2], regs[3])
David
>
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251126071446.3234218-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com/
> > Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/syscall.h | 8 +++++---
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/syscall.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/syscall.h
> > index f3853047c28e..f3564ba97f7e 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/syscall.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/syscall.h
> > @@ -82,9 +82,11 @@ static inline void syscall_get_arguments(struct task_struct *task,
> > unsigned long *args)
> > {
> > args[0] = regs->orig_x0;
> > - args++;
> > -
> > - memcpy(args, ®s->regs[1], 5 * sizeof(args[0]));
> > + args[1] = regs->regs[1];
> > + args[2] = regs->regs[2];
> > + args[3] = regs->regs[3];
> > + args[4] = regs->regs[4];
> > + args[5] = regs->regs[5];
> > }
>
> FWIW, I think this is clearer than the 'args++' and the memcpy(), so I'm
> happy with this regardless of the performance concern.
>
> However, as Dmitry says, we should keep this structurally the same as
> syscall_set_arguments(), and so we should update that in the same way.
>
> Mark.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists