From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc: "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@amacapital.net>,
"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"Denys Vlasenko" <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] x86/entry/64: Always run ptregs-using syscalls on the slow path
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 19:56:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151208185608.GA3004@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMzpN2jRGcfYOqcjxPvd+ufXK=HHU+dfUftQGnLVmohBPd6o6Q@mail.gmail.com>
* Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We could adjust it a bit and check whether we're in C land (by checking rsp
> > for ts) and jump into the slow path if we aren't, but I'm not sure this is a
> > huge win. It does save some rodata space by avoiding duplicating the table.
>
> The syscall table is huge. 545*8 bytes, over a full page. Duplicating it for
> just a few different entries is wasteful.
Note that what matters more is cache footprint, not pure size: 1K of RAM overhead
for something as fundamental as system calls is trivial cost.
So the questions to ask are along these lines:
- what is the typical locality of access (do syscall numbers cluster in time and
space)
- how frequently would the two tables be accessed (is one accessed less
frequently than the other?)
- subsequently how does the effective cache footprint change with the
duplication?
it might still end up not being worth it - but it's not the RAM cost that is the
main factor IMHO.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-08 18:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-07 21:51 [PATCH 00/12] x86: Rewrite 64-bit syscall code Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-07 21:51 ` [PATCH 01/12] selftests/x86: Extend Makefile to allow 64-bit only tests Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-08 9:34 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-12-09 18:55 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-09 19:11 ` Shuah Khan
2015-12-09 19:22 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-09 19:58 ` Shuah Khan
2015-12-07 21:51 ` [PATCH 02/12] selftests/x86: Add check_initial_reg_state Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-08 9:54 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-12-09 18:56 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-09 19:09 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-12-09 19:20 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-09 19:28 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-12-07 21:51 ` [PATCH 03/12] x86/syscalls: Refactor syscalltbl.sh Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-07 21:51 ` [PATCH 04/12] x86/syscalls: Remove __SYSCALL_COMMON and __SYSCALL_X32 Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-07 21:51 ` [PATCH 05/12] x86/syscalls: Move compat syscall entry handling into syscalltbl.sh Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-07 21:51 ` [PATCH 06/12] x86/syscalls: Add syscall entry qualifiers Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-07 21:51 ` [PATCH 07/12] x86/entry/64: Always run ptregs-using syscalls on the slow path Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-08 0:50 ` Brian Gerst
2015-12-08 0:54 ` Brian Gerst
2015-12-08 1:12 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-08 13:07 ` Brian Gerst
2015-12-08 18:56 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2015-12-08 21:51 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-09 4:43 ` Brian Gerst
2015-12-09 5:45 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-09 6:21 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-09 12:52 ` Brian Gerst
2015-12-09 13:02 ` [PATCH] x86/entry/64: Remove duplicate syscall table for fast path Brian Gerst
2015-12-09 18:53 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-09 21:08 ` Brian Gerst
2015-12-09 21:15 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-09 23:50 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-10 5:42 ` Brian Gerst
2015-12-10 5:54 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-09 19:30 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-07 21:51 ` [PATCH 08/12] x86/entry/64: Call all native slow-path syscalls with full pt-regs Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-07 21:51 ` [PATCH 09/12] x86/entry/64: Stop using int_ret_from_sys_call in ret_from_fork Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-07 21:51 ` [PATCH 10/12] x86/entry/64: Migrate the 64-bit syscall slow path to C Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-07 21:51 ` [PATCH 11/12] x86/entry/32: Change INT80 to be an interrupt gate Andy Lutomirski
2016-04-01 1:45 ` Rusty Russell
2016-04-01 7:40 ` [tip:x86/urgent] lguest, x86/entry/32: Fix handling of guest syscalls using interrupt gates tip-bot for Rusty Russell
2015-12-07 21:51 ` [PATCH 12/12] x86/entry: Do enter_from_user_mode with IRQs off Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-07 22:55 ` [PATCH 00/12] x86: Rewrite 64-bit syscall code Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-08 4:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-12-08 5:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-12-08 7:00 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20151208185608.GA3004@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=dvlasenk@redhat.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).