public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: "Fr馘駻ic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, X86 <x86@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
Subject: context tracking vs. syscall_trace_leave & do_notify_resume loop
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 21:30:24 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5542D730.2050903@redhat.com> (raw)

Andy pointed out to me something I should have seen earlier: both
syscall_trace_leave and do_notify_resume call both user_exit()
and user_enter(), which has the potential to greatly increase the
cost of context tracking.

I believe (though it is hard to know for sure) there are legitimate
reasons why there is a loop around syscall_trace_leave and
do_notify_resume, but I strongly suspect the context tracking code
does not need to be in that loop.

I suspect it would be possible to stick a call to a new function
(return_to_user ?) right after the DISABLE_INTERRUPTS below, which
could be used to do the context tracking user_enter just once, and
later on also to load the user FPU context (patches I have sitting
around).

syscall_return:
        /* The IRETQ could re-enable interrupts: */
        DISABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_ANY)
        TRACE_IRQS_IRETQ

Andy, Denys, do you guys see any issues with that idea?

I realize that would mean a RESTORE_EXTRA_REGS after that call
to return_to_user(), but it looks like that could be achieved
without making the code any worse than it already is :)

-- 
All rights reversed

             reply	other threads:[~2015-05-01  1:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-05-01  1:30 Rik van Riel [this message]
2015-05-01 15:55 ` context tracking vs. syscall_trace_leave & do_notify_resume loop Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-01 16:00   ` Rik van Riel
2015-05-01 16:05     ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-01 16:14       ` Rik van Riel
2015-05-01 16:16         ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-01 16:19           ` Rik van Riel

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=5542D730.2050903@redhat.com \
    --to=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=dvlasenk@redhat.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --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