From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v3 0/5] arm64: vdso: getcpu() support
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:13:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200819121318.52158-1-broonie@kernel.org> (raw)
Some applications, especially tracing ones, benefit from avoiding the
syscall overhead for getcpu() so it is common for architectures to have
vDSO implementations. Add one for arm64, using TPIDRRO_EL0 to pass a
pointer to per-CPU data rather than just store the immediate value in
order to allow for future extensibility.
It is questionable if something TPIDRRO_EL0 based is worthwhile at all
on current kernels, since v4.18 we have had support for restartable
sequences which can be used to provide a sched_getcpu() implementation
with generally better performance than the vDSO approach on
architectures which have that[1]. Work is ongoing to implement this for
glibc:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200527185130.5604-3-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com/
but is not yet merged and will need similar work for other userspaces.
The main advantages for the vDSO implementation are the node parameter
(though this is a static mapping to CPU number so could be looked up
separately when processing data if it's needed, it shouldn't need to be
in the hot path) and ease of implementation for users.
This is currently not compatible with KPTI due to the use of TPIDRRO_EL0
by the KPTI trampoline, this could be addressed by reinitializing that
system register in the return path but I have found it hard to justify
adding that overhead for all users for something that is essentially a
profiling optimization which is likely to get superceeded by a more
modern implementation - if there are other uses for the per-CPU data
then the balance might change here.
This builds on work done by Kristina Martsenko some time ago but is a
new implementation.
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=d7822b1e24f2df5df98c76f0e94a5416349ff759
v3:
- Rebase on v5.9-rc1.
- Drop in progress portions of the series.
v2:
- Rebase on v5.8-rc3.
- Add further cleanup patches & a first draft of multi-page support.
Mark Brown (5):
arm64: vdso: Provide a define when building the vDSO
arm64: vdso: Add per-CPU data
arm64: vdso: Initialise the per-CPU vDSO data
arm64: vdso: Add getcpu() implementation
selftests: vdso: Support arm64 in getcpu() test
arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h | 12 +----
arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/datapage.h | 54 +++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 26 ++++++++-
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso.c | 33 +++++++++++-
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/Makefile | 4 +-
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vdso.lds.S | 1 +
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++
.../testing/selftests/vDSO/vdso_test_getcpu.c | 10 ++++
8 files changed, 172 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/datapage.h
create mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c
--
2.20.1
next reply other threads:[~2020-08-19 12:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-19 12:13 Mark Brown [this message]
2020-08-19 12:13 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso: Provide a define when building the vDSO Mark Brown
2020-08-19 12:13 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] arm64: vdso: Add per-CPU data Mark Brown
2020-08-19 12:13 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] arm64: vdso: Initialise the per-CPU vDSO data Mark Brown
2020-08-19 12:13 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] arm64: vdso: Add getcpu() implementation Mark Brown
2020-08-19 12:13 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] selftests: vdso: Support arm64 in getcpu() test Mark Brown
2020-08-31 21:47 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] arm64: vdso: getcpu() support Shuah Khan
2020-09-01 9:25 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-09-01 10:46 ` Mark Brown
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=20200819121318.52158-1-broonie@kernel.org \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
--cc=will@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