All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	pageexec@freemail.hu
Subject: Re: [patch 05/10] Text Edit Lock - Alternative code for i386 and x86_64
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:59:33 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070911195933.GA23251@Krystal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070907223554.GA22646@one.firstfloor.org>

* Andi Kleen (andi@firstfloor.org) wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 10:04:42AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Andi Kleen (andi@firstfloor.org) wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 04:01:29PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > +	sync_core();
> > > > +	/* Not strictly needed, but can speed CPU recovery up. */
> > > 
> > > That turned out to break on some VIA CPUs. Should be removed.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hrm, when does it break ? At boot time ? Is it the cpuid that breaks or
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > the clflush ? How do you work around the problem when sync_core or
> 
> The CLFLUSH
> 
> > clflush is called from elsewhere; does it cause a problem if I call it
> > when I update immediate values ?
> 
> Unknown currently what are the exact circumstances.
> 
> For the other cases it is ignored right now, but when we get 
> more information it might be needed to clear the CLFLUSH 
> feature bit on those CPUs.
> 

Ok, it's better to simply remove the CLFLUSH since it's not needed
anyway. Do you recommend to only remove the CLFLUSH from the _early code
(executed before alternatives are applied) or to remove the CLFLUSH from
the normal execution time code also ?

> > Is it me or __inline_memcpy is simply a copy of i386's __memcpy ?
> > Is there any reason for this name change ?
> 
> x86-64 __memcpy does something different. 
> 
> It might make more sense
> 
> At some point I hope to change the i386 setup to be more like x86-64
> anyways -- the x86-64 version is imho much better.
> 

It looks like gorund work that should be done in i386 before we start
using __inline_memcpy in alternative.c which is shared between i386 and
x86_64. I haven't seen the alternative that would touch memcpy at all
anyway, am I missing something ? Also, being "faster" is not really an
issue there, since it is not done often. The only thing that matters is
if memcpy could be touched by alternative.c.

> >   A- ugly
> >   B- breaking vim syntax highlighting. (actually, all the rest of the
> >   file becomes weird after that. The problem is similar to declaration
> >   of #defile name ({ some code }). It does not really matter as long as
> >   it is in a header, but at the middle of a C file it gets rather
> >   annoying). (it never though I would use vim as a coding style
> >   reference) ;)
> 
> Then define a macro
> 
> #define BREAKPOINTS(x) \
> 	((unsigned char [x]){ [0 ... x] = BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTIONS })
> 
> and use that
> 

How about adding :

#define INIT_ARRAY(type, val, len) ((type [len]){ [0 ... len] = (val) })

to kernel.h ? It would be more generic.

> > And what is rather different between the 2 functions is when we want to
> > fill multiple bytes with the same pattern (I fill the unused part of my
> > immediate values bypass with 0x90 nops, but I agree that I could use
> > add_nops if it was exported).
> > 
> > Declaration of a variable length array on text_set's stack would break
> > older compilers, so I don't think it is a neat solution neither. kmalloc
> 
> All supported gccs support variable length arrays.
> 

ok

> > The idea is to mimic the local_irq_save/restore semantic, where the
> > flags argument is passed without &. This is why I use a macro instead of
> > an inline function
> 
> Sounds like a bogus idea to me.
> 

So you would prefer
unsigned long cr0;
  kernel_wp_save(&cr0)
..
  kernel_wp_restore(cr0);

to

unsigned long cr0;
  kernel_wp_save(cr0)
..
  kernel_wp_restore(cr0);

? It seems odd to me, since everyone would expect flags save/restore to
behave like local_irq_save/restore. Or I may misunderstand your point.


> > The good effect of disabling interrupts is that it would make sure no
> > interrupt handler will run with WP flag cleared on the CPU.  However, it
> 
> Yes that was my point. Not a very strong one admittedly.
> 

I agree that most kernel_wp_save/restore users should disable interrupts
before calling it (it would be a "good practice"), but I don't expect to
encapsulate irq disabling in these macros, since it is not mandatory.

Mathieu

> -Andi

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68

  reply	other threads:[~2007-09-11 19:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-09-06 20:01 [patch 00/10] Text Edit Lock for 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-09-06 20:01 ` [patch 01/10] Kprobes - use a mutex to protect the instruction pages list Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-09-06 20:01 ` [patch 02/10] Kprobes - do not use kprobes mutex in arch code Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-09-06 20:01 ` [patch 03/10] Kprobes - declare kprobe_mutex static Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-09-06 20:01 ` [patch 04/10] Text Edit Lock - Architecture Independent Code Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-09-06 20:01 ` [patch 05/10] Text Edit Lock - Alternative code for i386 and x86_64 Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-09-07  6:59   ` Andi Kleen
2007-09-07 14:04     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-09-07 22:35       ` Andi Kleen
2007-09-11 19:59         ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2007-09-07  8:43   ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2007-09-07 14:09     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-09-06 20:01 ` [patch 06/10] Text Edit Lock - kprobes architecture independent support Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-09-07 10:28   ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2007-09-07 14:13     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-09-06 20:01 ` [patch 07/10] Text Edit Lock - kprobes i386 Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-09-06 20:01 ` [patch 08/10] Text Edit Lock - kprobes x86_64 Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-09-06 20:01 ` [patch 09/10] Text Edit Lock - i386 standardize debug rodata Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-09-06 20:01 ` [patch 10/10] Text Edit Lock - x86_64 " Mathieu Desnoyers
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-08-27 15:56 [patch 00/10] Text Edit Lock Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-08-27 15:56 ` [patch 05/10] Text Edit Lock - Alternative code for i386 and x86_64 Mathieu Desnoyers

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070911195933.GA23251@Krystal \
    --to=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pageexec@freemail.hu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.