From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Pete Swain <swine@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@orcam.me.uk>,
Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Pete Swain <swine@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] timers: retpoline mitigation for time funcs
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 14:14:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r165gmoz.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220218221820.950118-2-swine@google.com>
On Fri, Feb 18 2022 at 14:18, Pete Swain wrote:
> Adds indirect call exports for clock reads from tsc, apic,
> hrtimer, via clock-event, timekeeper & posix interfaces.
Sure, but why?
> Signed-off-by: Pete Swain <swine@google.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c | 8 +++++---
> arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c | 3 ++-
> include/linux/hrtimer.h | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
> kernel/time/clockevents.c | 9 ++++++---
> kernel/time/hrtimer.c | 3 ++-
> kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c | 4 ++--
> kernel/time/posix-timers.c | 3 ++-
> kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 2 +-
> 8 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
Can this please be split up properly?
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> index b70344bf6600..523a569dd35e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> @@ -463,15 +463,17 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(setup_APIC_eilvt);
> /*
> * Program the next event, relative to now
> */
> -static int lapic_next_event(unsigned long delta,
> +INDIRECT_CALLABLE_SCOPE
> +int lapic_next_event(unsigned long delta,
> struct clock_event_device *evt)
So this was formatted properly:
static int lapic_next_event(unsigned long delta,
struct clock_event_device *evt)
Now it turned into garbage:
INDIRECT_CALLABLE_SCOPE
int lapic_next_event(unsigned long delta,
struct clock_event_device *evt)
while:
INDIRECT_CALLABLE_SCOPE int lapic_next_event(unsigned long delta,
struct clock_event_device *evt)
or
INDIRECT_CALLABLE_SCOPE
int lapic_next_event(unsigned long delta, struct clock_event_device *evt)
are both what a reader would expect.
Similar issues all over the place.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> index a698196377be..ff2868d5ddea 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> @@ -1090,7 +1090,8 @@ static void tsc_resume(struct clocksource *cs)
> * checking the result of read_tsc() - cycle_last for being negative.
> * That works because CLOCKSOURCE_MASK(64) does not mask out any bit.
> */
> -static u64 read_tsc(struct clocksource *cs)
> +INDIRECT_CALLABLE_SCOPE
> +u64 read_tsc(struct clocksource *cs)
What's the extra line for?
> {
> return (u64)rdtsc_ordered();
> }
> diff --git a/include/linux/hrtimer.h b/include/linux/hrtimer.h
> index 0ee140176f10..9d2d110f0b8c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/hrtimer.h
> +++ b/include/linux/hrtimer.h
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> #include <linux/seqlock.h>
> #include <linux/timer.h>
> #include <linux/timerqueue.h>
> +#include <linux/indirect_call_wrapper.h>
>
> struct hrtimer_clock_base;
> struct hrtimer_cpu_base;
> @@ -297,14 +298,17 @@ static inline s64 hrtimer_get_expires_ns(const struct hrtimer *timer)
> return ktime_to_ns(timer->node.expires);
> }
>
> +INDIRECT_CALLABLE_DECLARE(extern ktime_t ktime_get(void));
> +
> static inline ktime_t hrtimer_expires_remaining(const struct hrtimer *timer)
> {
> - return ktime_sub(timer->node.expires, timer->base->get_time());
> + return ktime_sub(timer->node.expires,
> + INDIRECT_CALL_1(timer->base->get_time, ktime_get));
This wants a proper explanation in a changelog for the hrtimer check,
why this is optimized for ktime_get().
> }
>
> static inline ktime_t hrtimer_cb_get_time(struct hrtimer *timer)
> {
> - return timer->base->get_time();
> + return INDIRECT_CALL_1(timer->base->get_time, ktime_get);
> }
>
> static inline int hrtimer_is_hres_active(struct hrtimer *timer)
> @@ -503,7 +507,9 @@ hrtimer_forward(struct hrtimer *timer, ktime_t now, ktime_t interval);
> static inline u64 hrtimer_forward_now(struct hrtimer *timer,
> ktime_t interval)
> {
> - return hrtimer_forward(timer, timer->base->get_time(), interval);
> + return hrtimer_forward(timer,
> + INDIRECT_CALL_1(timer->base->get_time, ktime_get),
> + interval);
> }
>
> /* Precise sleep: */
> @@ -536,4 +542,11 @@ int hrtimers_dead_cpu(unsigned int cpu);
> #define hrtimers_dead_cpu NULL
> #endif
>
> +struct clock_event_device;
> +INDIRECT_CALLABLE_DECLARE(extern __weak u64 read_tsc(struct clocksource *cs));
> +INDIRECT_CALLABLE_DECLARE(extern int thread_cpu_clock_get(
> + const clockid_t which_clock, struct timespec64 *tp));
> +INDIRECT_CALLABLE_DECLARE(extern __weak int lapic_next_deadline(
> + unsigned long delta, struct clock_event_device *evt));
> +
No. This is not how it works. This is a generic header and x86 specific
muck has no place here.
> #endif
> diff --git a/kernel/time/clockevents.c b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
> index 003ccf338d20..ac15412e87c4 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/clockevents.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
> @@ -245,7 +245,8 @@ static int clockevents_program_min_delta(struct clock_event_device *dev)
>
> dev->retries++;
> clc = ((unsigned long long) delta * dev->mult) >> dev->shift;
> - if (dev->set_next_event((unsigned long) clc, dev) == 0)
> + if (INDIRECT_CALL_1(dev->set_next_event, lapic_next_deadline,
> + (unsigned long) clc, dev) == 0)
No. We are not sprinkling x86'isms into generic code.
> diff --git a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
> index 96b4e7810426..d8bf325fa84e 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
> @@ -1596,8 +1596,8 @@ static int thread_cpu_clock_getres(const clockid_t which_clock,
> {
> return posix_cpu_clock_getres(THREAD_CLOCK, tp);
> }
> -static int thread_cpu_clock_get(const clockid_t which_clock,
> - struct timespec64 *tp)
> +INDIRECT_CALLABLE_SCOPE
> +int thread_cpu_clock_get(const clockid_t which_clock, struct timespec64 *tp)
> {
> return posix_cpu_clock_get(THREAD_CLOCK, tp);
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/time/posix-timers.c b/kernel/time/posix-timers.c
> index 1cd10b102c51..35eac10ee796 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/posix-timers.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/posix-timers.c
> @@ -1089,7 +1089,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(clock_gettime, const clockid_t, which_clock,
> if (!kc)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - error = kc->clock_get_timespec(which_clock, &kernel_tp);
> + error = INDIRECT_CALL_1(kc->clock_get_timespec, thread_cpu_clock_get,
> + which_clock, &kernel_tp);
The argument for selecting thread_cpu_clock_get() as optimization target
is?
>
> if (!error && put_timespec64(&kernel_tp, tp))
> error = -EFAULT;
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> index dcdcb85121e4..2b1a3b146614 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ static inline u64 tk_clock_read(const struct tk_read_base *tkr)
> {
> struct clocksource *clock = READ_ONCE(tkr->clock);
>
> - return clock->read(clock);
> + return INDIRECT_CALL_1(clock->read, read_tsc, clock);
Again. No X86 muck here.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-10 12:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-18 22:18 [PATCH 1/2] kvm/x86: rename kvm's read_tsc() as kvm_read_host_tsc() Pete Swain
2022-02-18 22:18 ` [PATCH 2/2] timers: retpoline mitigation for time funcs Pete Swain
2022-04-10 12:14 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2022-04-11 9:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-11 11:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-02-18 22:49 ` [PATCH 1/2] kvm/x86: rename kvm's read_tsc() as kvm_read_host_tsc() Jim Mattson
2022-02-19 8:40 ` Paolo Bonzini
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=87r165gmoz.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=johan@kernel.org \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=macro@orcam.me.uk \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=swine@google.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox