From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v9 08/13] arch/arm64: adopt prepare_exit_to_usermode() model from x86
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:01:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160105180101.GA29455@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUyB5dHn0OQwwYwB28pEDqMeGmnFv1mQLfHXhW-4YWCjg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 02:31:42PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 02:34:46PM -0500, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> >> This change is a prerequisite change for TASK_ISOLATION but also
> >> stands on its own for readability and maintainability.
> >
> > I have also been looking into converting the userspace return path from
> > assembly to C [1], for the latter two reasons. Based on that, I have a
> > couple of comments.
> >
>
> >
> > [1] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/log/?h=arm64/entry-deasm
>
> Neat!
>
> In case you want to compare notes, I have a branch with the entire
> syscall path on x86 in C except for cleanly separated asm fast path
> optimizations:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/log/?h=x86/entry_compat
It was in fact your x86 effort that inspired me to look at this!
Thanks for the pointer, I'm almost certainly going to steal an idea or
two.
Currently it looks like arm64's conversion will be less painful than
that for x86 as the entry assembly is smaller and relatively uniform.
It looks like all but the register save/restore is possible in C.
That said, I have yet to stress/validate everything with tracing, irq
debugging, and so on, so my confidence may be misplaced.
Thanks,
Mark.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-05 18:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1451936091-29247-1-git-send-email-cmetcalf@ezchip.com>
2016-01-04 19:34 ` [PATCH v9 08/13] arch/arm64: adopt prepare_exit_to_usermode() model from x86 Chris Metcalf
2016-01-04 20:33 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-04 21:01 ` Chris Metcalf
2016-01-05 17:21 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-05 17:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] arm64: entry: remove pointless SPSR mode check Mark Rutland
2016-01-06 12:15 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-01-05 17:33 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: factor work_pending state machine to C Mark Rutland
2016-01-05 18:53 ` Chris Metcalf
2016-01-06 12:30 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-01-06 12:47 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-06 13:43 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-06 14:17 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-01-04 22:31 ` [PATCH v9 08/13] arch/arm64: adopt prepare_exit_to_usermode() model from x86 Andy Lutomirski
2016-01-05 18:01 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2016-01-04 19:34 ` [PATCH v9 09/13] arch/arm64: enable task isolation functionality Chris Metcalf
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=20160105180101.GA29455@leverpostej \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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