[PATCH] powerpcs: perf: consolidate perf_callchain_user_64 and perf_callchain_user_32

[Michal Suchánek]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 07:21:06AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 06/04/2020 à 23:00, Michal Suchanek a écrit :
> > perf_callchain_user_64 and perf_callchain_user_32 are nearly identical.
> > Consolidate into one function with thin wrappers.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin at gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <msuchanek at suse.de>
> > ---
> >   arch/powerpc/perf/callchain.h    | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >   arch/powerpc/perf/callchain_32.c | 21 ++-------------------
> >   arch/powerpc/perf/callchain_64.c | 14 ++++----------
> >   3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/perf/callchain.h b/arch/powerpc/perf/callchain.h
> > index 7a2cb9e1181a..7540bb71cb60 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/perf/callchain.h
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/perf/callchain.h
> > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
> >   #ifndef _POWERPC_PERF_CALLCHAIN_H
> >   #define _POWERPC_PERF_CALLCHAIN_H
> > -int read_user_stack_slow(void __user *ptr, void *buf, int nb);
> > +int read_user_stack_slow(const void __user *ptr, void *buf, int nb);
> 
> Does the constification of ptr has to be in this patch ?
It was in the original patch. The code is touched anyway.
> Wouldn't it be better to have it as a separate patch ?
Don't care much either way. Can resend it as separate patches.
> 
> >   void perf_callchain_user_64(struct perf_callchain_entry_ctx *entry,
> >   			    struct pt_regs *regs);
> >   void perf_callchain_user_32(struct perf_callchain_entry_ctx *entry,
> > @@ -16,4 +16,26 @@ static inline bool invalid_user_sp(unsigned long sp)
> >   	return (!sp || (sp & mask) || (sp > top));
> >   }
> > +/*
> > + * On 32-bit we just access the address and let hash_page create a
> > + * HPTE if necessary, so there is no need to fall back to reading
> > + * the page tables.  Since this is called at interrupt level,
> > + * do_page_fault() won't treat a DSI as a page fault.
> > + */
> > +static inline int __read_user_stack(const void __user *ptr, void *ret,
> > +				    size_t size)
> > +{
> > +	int rc;
> > +
> > +	if ((unsigned long)ptr > TASK_SIZE - size ||
> > +			((unsigned long)ptr & (size - 1)))
> > +		return -EFAULT;
> > +	rc = probe_user_read(ret, ptr, size);
> > +
> > +	if (rc && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64))
> 
> gcc is probably smart enough to deal with it efficiently, but it would
> be more correct to test rc after checking CONFIG_PPC64.
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64) is constant so that part of the check should be
compiled out in any case.

Thanks

Michal