[RFC PATCH v2 02/10] lib: vdso: move call to fallback out of common code.
Andy Lutomirski
luto at kernel.org
Tue Dec 24 13:24:05 AEDT 2019
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 6:31 AM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy at c-s.fr> wrote:
>
> On powerpc, VDSO functions and syscalls cannot be implemented in C
> because the Linux kernel ABI requires that CR[SO] bit is set in case
> of error and cleared when no error.
>
> As this cannot be done in C, C VDSO functions and syscall'based
> fallback need a trampoline in ASM.
>
> By moving the fallback calls out of the common code, arches like
> powerpc can implement both the call to C VDSO and the fallback call
> in a single trampoline function.
Maybe the issue is that I'm not a powerpc person, but I don't
understand this. The common vDSO code is in C. Presumably this means
that you need an asm trampoline no matter what to call the C code. Is
the improvement that, with this change, you can have the asm
trampoline do a single branch, so it's logically:
ret = [call the C code];
if (ret == 0) {
set success bit;
} else {
ret = fallback;
if (ret == 0)
set success bit;
else
set failure bit;
}
return ret;
instead of:
ret = [call the C code, which includes the fallback];
if (ret == 0)
set success bit;
else
set failure bit;
It's not obvious to me that the former ought to be faster.
>
> The two advantages are:
> - No need play back and forth with CR[SO] and negative return value.
> - No stack frame is required in VDSO C functions for the fallbacks.
How is no stack frame required? Do you mean that the presence of the
fallback causes worse code generation? Can you improve the fallback
instead?
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list