From: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
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>,
"skh >> Shuah Khan" <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] arm64: vdso: getcpu() support
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 15:47:17 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <315d97af-715a-9942-a731-11de2fbbbded@linuxfoundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200819121318.52158-1-broonie@kernel.org>
On 8/19/20 6:13 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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
>
Patches look good to me from selftests perspective. My acked by
for these patches to go through arm64.
Acked-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
If you would like me to take these through kselftest tree, give
me your Acks. I can queue these up for 5.10-rc1
thanks,
-- Shuah
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-31 21:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-19 12:13 [PATCH v3 0/5] arm64: vdso: getcpu() support Mark Brown
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 ` Shuah Khan [this message]
2020-09-01 9:25 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] arm64: vdso: getcpu() support 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=315d97af-715a-9942-a731-11de2fbbbded@linuxfoundation.org \
--to=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=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