From: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/19] x86, mpx: support 32-bit binaries on 64-bit kernel
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 16:29:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <555A75F5.1000503@sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1505182334030.4225@nanos>
On 05/18/2015 02:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2015, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
>>
>> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> Changes from v20:
>>
>> * Fix macro confusion between BD and BT
>> * Add accessor for bt_entry_size_bytes()
>
> Forgot to say this earlier. Please put the changes after the changelog
> itself, i.e. after the '---'
>
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>> -
>> -/* upper 28 bits [47:20] of the virtual address in 64-bit used to
>> - * index into bounds directory (BD).
>> +/*
>> + * The upper 28 bits [47:20] of the virtual address in 64-bit
>> + * are used to index into bounds directory (BD).
>> + *
>> + * The directory is 2G (2^31) in size, and with 8-byte entries
>> + * it has 2^28 entries.
>> */
>> -#define MPX_BD_ENTRY_OFFSET 28
>> -#define MPX_BD_ENTRY_SHIFT 3
>> -/* bits [19:3] of the virtual address in 64-bit used to index into
>> - * bounds table (BT).
>> +#define MPX_BD_SIZE_BYTES_64 (1UL<<31)
>> +/* An entry is a long, so 8 bytes and a shift of 3 */
>
> I can see the 8 bytes, but where is the shift constant?
The comment is old. I'll zap it.
>> +static inline int bt_entry_size_bytes(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> +{
>> + if (is_64bit_mm(mm))
>> + return MPX_BT_ENTRY_BYTES_64;
>> + else
>> + return MPX_BT_ENTRY_BYTES_32;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Take a virtual address and turns it in to the offset in bytes
>> + * inside of the bounds table where the bounds table entry
>> + * controlling 'addr' can be found.
>> + */
>> +static unsigned long mpx_get_bt_entry_offset_bytes(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> + unsigned long addr)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long bt_table_nr_entries;
>> + unsigned long offset = addr;
>> +
>> + if (is_64bit_mm(mm)) {
>> + /* Bottom 3 bits are ignored on 64-bit */
>> + offset >>= 3;
>> + bt_table_nr_entries = MPX_BT_NR_ENTRIES_64;
>> + } else {
>> + /* Bottom 2 bits are ignored on 32-bit */
>> + offset >>= 2;
>> + bt_table_nr_entries = MPX_BT_NR_ENTRIES_32;
>> + }
>> + /*
>> + * We know the size of the table in to which we are
>> + * indexing, and we have eliminated all the low bits
>> + * which are ignored for indexing.
>> + *
>> + * Mask out all the high bits which we do not need
>> + * to index in to the table.
>> + */
>> + offset &= (bt_table_nr_entries-1);
>
> .... entries - 1);
>
> And you might explain why nr_entries - 1 is a proper mask,
> i.e. nr_entries is always a power of 2.
>
>> + /*
>> + * We now have an entry offset in terms of *entries* in
>> + * the table. We need to scale it back up to bytes.
>> + */
>> + offset *= bt_entry_size_bytes(mm);
>
> You could store the scale value out in the if () construct above, but I
> guess the compiler can figure that out as well :)
>
>> + return offset;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Total size of the process's virtual address space
>> + * Use a u64 because 4GB (for 32-bit) won't fit in a long.
>> + *
>> + * __VIRTUAL_MASK does not work here. It only covers the
>> + * user address space and the tables cover the *entire*
>> + * virtual address space supported on the CPU.
>> + */
>> +static inline unsigned long long mm_virt_space(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> +{
>> + if (is_64bit_mm(mm))
>> + return 1ULL << 48;
>
> cpu_info->x86_phys_bits will tell you the proper value
>
>> + else
>> + return 1ULL << 32;
>
> And for a 32bit kernel 32 might be wrong because with PAE you have 36
> bits.
That's physical space. I really do need virtual space here.
But your comments stand for ->x86_virt_bits. I'll fix.
>> +static unsigned long mpx_get_bd_entry_offset(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> + unsigned long addr)
>> +{
>> + /*
>> + * There are several ways to derive the bd offsets. We
>> + * use the following approach here:
>> + * 1. We know the size of the virtual address space
>> + * 2. We know the number of entries in a bounds table
>> + * 3. We know that each entry covers a fixed amount of
>> + * virtual address space.
>> + * So, we can just divide the virtual address by the
>> + * virtual space used by one entry to determine which
>> + * entry "controls" the given virtual address.
>> + */
>> + if (is_64bit_mm(mm)) {
>> + int bd_entry_size = 8; /* 64-bit pointer */
>> + /*
>> + * Take the 64-bit addressing hole in to account.
>> + * This is a noop on 32-bit since it has no hole.
>
> But a 32bit kernel will not take this code path because
> is_64bit_mm(mm) evaluates to false.
I meant that in case someone wondered why I didn't have that code in the
32-bit version. I'll move the comment.
>> + */
>> + addr &= ~(mm_virt_space(mm) - 1);
>> + return (addr / bd_entry_virt_space(mm)) * bd_entry_size;
>> + } else {
>> + int bd_entry_size = 4; /* 32-bit pointer */
>> + return (addr / bd_entry_virt_space(mm)) * bd_entry_size;
>> + }
>> + /*
>> + * The two return calls above are exact copies. If we
>> + * pull out a single copy and put it in here, gcc won't
>> + * realize that we're doing a power-of-2 divide and use
>> + * shifts. It uses a real divide. If we put them up
>> + * there, it manages to figure it out (gcc 4.8.3).
>
> Can't we provide the shift values from bd_entry_virt_space() so we
> don't have to worry about gcc versions being more or less clever?
Yes, I could go back and rework all the math to be done with shifts
instead of power-of-2 divides (which is what was done before). But,
it's very clear the way that it stands, minus this wart. The code look
a *lot* better this way.
This isn't super performance-sensitive code. It's basically in the
munmap() path. I just really didn't like the idea of an actual integer
divide in there.
So, if GCC breaks this, so be it. I don't think we'll ever notice. The
optimization was just too obvious to completely ignore.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-18 23:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-08 18:59 [PATCH 00/19] x86, mpx updates for 4.2 (take 6) Dave Hansen
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 01/19] x86, mpx, xsave: fix up bad get_xsave_addr() assumptions Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 19:34 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 03/19] x86, mpx: use new tsk_get_xsave_addr() Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 20:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-19 0:01 ` Dave Hansen
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 02/19] x86, fpu: wrap get_xsave_addr() to make it safer Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 19:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-18 19:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 04/19] x86, mpx: cleanup: do not pass task around when unnecessary Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 20:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 05/19] x86, mpx: remove redundant MPX_BNDCFG_ADDR_MASK Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 20:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 06/19] x86, mpx: we do not allocate the bounds directory Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 20:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 07/19] x86, mpx: boot-time disable Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 20:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 08/19] x86, mpx: trace #BR exceptions Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 21:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 09/19] x86, mpx: trace entry to bounds exception paths Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 20:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-18 23:06 ` Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 23:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 10/19] x86, mpx: trace ranged MPX operations Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 21:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 12/19] x86: make is_64bit_mm() widely available Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 21:06 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 11/19] x86, mpx: trace allocation of new bounds tables Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 21:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 13/19] x86, mpx: Add temporary variable to reduce masking Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 21:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 14/19] x86, mpx: new directory entry to addr helper Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 21:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 15/19] x86, mpx: do 32-bit-only cmpxchg for 32-bit apps Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 21:22 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 16/19] x86, mpx: support 32-bit binaries on 64-bit kernel Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 21:53 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-18 23:29 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2015-05-18 23:37 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 17/19] x86, mpx: rewrite unmap code Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 21:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 18/19] x86, mpx: do not count MPX VMAs as neighbors when unmapping Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 21:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 19/19] x86, mpx: allow mixed binaries again Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 21:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-05-19 6:25 [PATCH 00/19] x86, mpx updates for 4.2 (take 7) Dave Hansen
2015-05-19 6:25 ` [PATCH 16/19] x86, mpx: support 32-bit binaries on 64-bit kernel Dave Hansen
2015-05-19 8:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-27 18:36 [PATCH 00/19] x86, mpx updates for 4.2 (take 8) Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 16/19] x86, mpx: support 32-bit binaries on 64-bit kernel Dave Hansen
2015-06-07 18:37 [PATCH 00/19] x86, mpx updates for 4.2 (take 9) Dave Hansen
2015-06-07 18:37 ` [PATCH 16/19] x86, mpx: support 32-bit binaries on 64-bit kernel Dave Hansen
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=555A75F5.1000503@sr71.net \
--to=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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