From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FC3BC433EF for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 12:33:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=UjxSGygmBlW4kMkfvZSdAPXPApjW2Thtg4ocIlQRiCY=; b=RzHceaE9SjAPNA 5j00SIH2cDH65MVCso3tgyXzTSePN2SL5hiHfjQf15zYXtSEAhfbTB8VPSojMewvZRYESEI22E9dw CLQ96dVvPXPv/4zUBnUJA1fKzKOFGF5hHra0l+4bAaYAygELOs151kS8jYPM+zKVOBX+r+ESxx5vO 3xoetFTpsMmaNmHep78fKu+8E225fA/V/NstQOS7NwR4xZ4F+jU92ylFeb90vu8B99GiaoZqR2OtR +y/YzMfoT6FiG1l4kRmYc4LRd0vuMb6pmMoSVDgWQMIhzH/pJRnzbeswtXTZUsUhw8VUXshRon/qZ tqZnUFqeuuJOkkUxU5rA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nFbH8-001HJc-CS; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 12:31:47 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nFbDO-001Flb-K6 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 12:27:56 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88BAF11D4; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 04:27:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from FVFF77S0Q05N (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC6A43F774; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 04:27:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 12:27:46 +0000 From: Mark Rutland To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ardb@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, will@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/preempt: add PREEMPT_DYNAMIC using static keys Message-ID: References: <20211109172408.49641-1-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20211109172408.49641-6-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20220202232145.GA461279@lothringen> <20220203113453.GA471778@lothringen> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220203113453.GA471778@lothringen> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220203_042754_802597_8A7439B4 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 24.25 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 12:34:53PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:51:46AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 12:21:45AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h > > > > index 78c351e35fec..7710b6593c72 100644 > > > > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > > > > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > > > > @@ -2008,7 +2008,7 @@ static inline int test_tsk_need_resched(struct task_struct *tsk) > > > > #if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPTION) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC) > > > > extern int __cond_resched(void); > > > > > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC > > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC) && defined(CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_CALL) > > > > > > > > DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(cond_resched, __cond_resched); > > > > > > > > @@ -2017,6 +2017,14 @@ static __always_inline int _cond_resched(void) > > > > return static_call_mod(cond_resched)(); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +#elif defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC) && defined(CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_KEY) > > > > +extern int dynamic_cond_resched(void); > > > > + > > > > +static __always_inline int _cond_resched(void) > > > > +{ > > > > + return dynamic_cond_resched(); > > > > > > So in the end this is creating an indirect call for every preemption entrypoint. > > > > Huh? "indirect call" usually means a branch to a function pointer, and I don't > > think that's what you mean here. Do you just mean that we add a (direct) > > call+return? > > Right, basic terminology and me... No problem; just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing! :) > > This gets inlined, and will be just a direct call to dynamic_cond_resched(). > > e,g. on arm64 this will be a single instruction: > > > > bl dynamic_cond_resched > > > > ... and (as the commit message desribes) then the implementation of > > dynamic_cond_resched will be the same as the regular __cond_resched *but* the > > static key trampoline is inlined at the start, e.g. > > > > | : > > | bti c > > | b > > | mov w0, #0x0 // #0 > > | ret > > | mrs x0, sp_el0 > > | ldr x0, [x0, #8] > > | cbnz x0, > > | paciasp > > | stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! > > | mov x29, sp > > | bl > > | mov w0, #0x1 // #1 > > | ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 > > | autiasp > > | ret > > > > ... compared to the regular form of the function: > > > > | <__cond_resched>: > > | bti c > > | mrs x0, sp_el0 > > | ldr x1, [x0, #8] > > | cbz x1, <__cond_resched+0x18> > > | mov w0, #0x0 // #0 > > | ret > > | paciasp > > | stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! > > | mov x29, sp > > | bl > > | mov w0, #0x1 // #1 > > | ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 > > | autiasp > > | ret > > Who reads changelogs anyway? ;-) > > Ok I didn't know about that. Is this a guaranteed behaviour everywhere? For anyone with static keys based on jump labels it should look roughly as above. The *precise* codegen will depend on a bunch of details, but the whole point of jump labels and static keys is to permit codegen like this. > Perhaps put a big fat comment below HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_KEY help to tell > about this expectation as I guess it depends on arch/compiler? Sure; I'll come up with something for v2. Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel