Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: stop using PER_CPU_VAR(kernel_stack)

[Denys Vlasenko]

On 03/23/2015 07:27 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 03/23/2015 06:45 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:38:09 +0100
>>> Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Can we do a:
>>>>>
>>>>>  #define cpu_current_top_of_stack (cpu_tss + TSS_sp0)
>>>>
>>>> We already do something similar:
>>>>
>>>> static inline unsigned long current_top_of_stack(void)
>>>> {
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>>>>         return this_cpu_read_stable(cpu_tss.x86_tss.sp0);
>>>> #else
>>>>         /* sp0 on x86_32 is special in and around vm86 mode. */
>>>>         return this_cpu_read_stable(cpu_current_top_of_stack);
>>>> #endif
>>>> }
>>>
>>> So can we then have:
>>>
>>> #ifdef __ASSEMBLY__
>>> # define cpu_current_top_of_stack (cpu_tss + TSS_sp0)
>>> #else
>>> # define cpu_current_top_of_stack (cpu_tss.x86_tss.sp0)
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> And get rid of that if statement in the static inline?
>>
>> I prefer less macro indirection in assembly code,
>> but I won't object too strongly if this would be done.
>>
>> It's up to other x86 maintainers to agree - I'm touching
>> the code recently changed by Andy, he may see the way forward
>> somewhat differently.
>>
> 
> I kind of like Steven's idea.  Although.. shouldn't we go all the way and do:
> 
> #ifdef __ASSEMBLY__
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> #define cpu_current_top_of_stack %gs:(cpu_tss + TSS_sp0)
> #else
> #define cpu_current_top_of_stack %gs:(current_top_of_stack)
> #endif
> #endif

Which .h file do you propose to have this in? processor.h is not suitable,
it is not __ASSEMBLY__-fied.

I'm looking at a place where to put it.
For example, one of the users of the (cpu_tss + TSS_sp0) expression,
xen-asm_64.S, has only these few includes:

#include <asm/errno.h>
#include <asm/percpu.h>
#include <asm/processor-flags.h>
#include <asm/segment.h>
#include <asm/asm-offsets.h>

#include <xen/interface/xen.h>

#include "xen-asm.h"

None seems suitable. I will probably have to include thread_info.h too,
and put the define there. Ugly ugly ugly.

I'll resend a patchset where a new patch #3 attempts to do this
"unification". I personally don't see it as a clear improvement.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/