From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Pass in pt_regs pointer for syscalls that need it
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:00:17 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49932E51.8040009@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <73c1f2160902111157g202dbdd2h1bc75b0a8cb242b3@mail.gmail.com>
Brian Gerst wrote:
>
> IMHO, copying the 4th-6th args to a new stack frame is the only way to
> guarantee that gcc won't trash any part of pt_regs. The question is
> whether to do it unconditionally, or try to be clever and only copy
> them for the syscalls that actually need them.
>
My guess is that the conditionalization would actually cost more than
doing it unconditionally. We're talking a small fraction of a cache
line, and a set of stores to RAM, which can be buffered.
It's in many ways easier than reorganizing the struct pt_regs. I'm just
hypersensitive to adding system call overhead in any way.
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-11 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-10 14:51 [PATCH 0/3] x86: Fix pt_regs passed by value Brian Gerst
2009-02-10 14:51 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86: Use pt_regs pointer in do_device_not_available() Brian Gerst
2009-02-11 7:43 ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-11 10:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-11 14:34 ` Brian Gerst
2009-02-11 14:42 ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-11 14:46 ` Brian Gerst
2009-02-11 14:53 ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-10 14:51 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86: Pass in pt_regs pointer for syscalls that need it Brian Gerst
2009-02-11 7:41 ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-11 10:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-11 14:14 ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-11 14:31 ` Brian Gerst
2009-02-11 14:41 ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-11 14:43 ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-11 14:48 ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-11 14:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-11 14:59 ` Brian Gerst
2009-02-11 15:05 ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-11 15:10 ` Brian Gerst
2009-02-11 15:14 ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-11 15:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-12 1:12 ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-11 15:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-11 17:52 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-02-11 18:27 ` Brian Gerst
2009-02-11 19:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-02-11 19:57 ` Brian Gerst
2009-02-11 20:00 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2009-02-11 21:43 ` [PATCH] x86: pass in pt_regs pointer for syscalls that need it (take 2) Brian Gerst
2009-02-11 21:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-02-11 22:06 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-02-12 11:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-10 14:51 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86: Drop -fno-stack-protector after pt_regs fixes Brian Gerst
2009-02-11 11:42 ` [PATCH 0/3] x86: Fix pt_regs passed by value Ingo Molnar
2009-02-11 14:15 ` Tejun Heo
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=49932E51.8040009@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tj@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