Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] powerpc/vdso32: inline __get_datapage()
From: Santosh Sivaraj
Date: Fri Sep 13 2019 - 09:31:39 EST
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxx> writes:
> Hi Santosh,
> Le 26/08/2019 Ã 07:44, Santosh Sivaraj a ÃcritÂ:
>> Hi Christophe,
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxx> writes:
>>> __get_datapage() is only a few instructions to retrieve the
>>> address of the page where the kernel stores data to the VDSO.
>>> By inlining this function into its users, a bl/blr pair and
>>> a mflr/mtlr pair is avoided, plus a few reg moves.
>>> The improvement is noticeable (about 55 nsec/call on an 8xx)
>>> vdsotest before the patch:
>>> gettimeofday: vdso: 731 nsec/call
>>> clock-gettime-realtime-coarse: vdso: 668 nsec/call
>>> clock-gettime-monotonic-coarse: vdso: 745 nsec/call
>>> vdsotest after the patch:
>>> gettimeofday: vdso: 677 nsec/call
>>> clock-gettime-realtime-coarse: vdso: 613 nsec/call
>>> clock-gettime-monotonic-coarse: vdso: 690 nsec/call
>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxx>
>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso32/cacheflush.S | 10 +++++-----
>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso32/datapage.S | 29 ++++-------------------------
>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso32/datapage.h | 11 +++++++++++
>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso32/gettimeofday.S | 13 ++++++-------
>>> 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>>> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso32/datapage.h
>> The datapage.h file should ideally be moved under include/asm, then we can use
>> the same for powerpc64 too.
> I have a more ambitious project indeed.
> Most of the VDSO code is duplicated between vdso32 and vdso64. I'm
> aiming at merging everything into a single source code.
> This means we would have to generate vdso32.so and vdso64.so out of the
> same source files. Any idea on how to do that ? I'm not too good at
> creating Makefiles. I guess we would have everything in
> arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso/ and would have to build the objects twice,
> once in arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso32/ and once in arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso64/
Should we need to build the objects twice? For 64 bit config it is going to be
a 64 bit build else a 32 bit build. It should suffice to get the single source
code compile for both, maybe with macros or (!)CONFIG_PPC64 conditional
compilation. Am I missing something when you say build twice?