Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86/asm/entry/64: Migrate error and IRQ exit work to C and remove old assembly code

From: Frederic Weisbecker
Date: Wed Aug 12 2015 - 09:13:16 EST

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 03:59:37PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 03:25:04PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> Can you explain to me what context tracking does that rcu_irq_enter
> >> and vtime_account_irq_enter don't do that's expensive? Frankly, I'd
> >> rather drop everything except the context tracking callback.
> >
> > Irqs have their own hooks in the generic code. irq_enter() and irq_exit().
> > And those take care of RCU and time accounting already. So arch code really
> > doesn't need to care about that.
> I'd love to have irq_enter_from_user and irq_enter_from_kernel instead.

I don't get why we need that. Vtime internals already keeps track of where we
are. Again mixing up hard and soft tracking is asking for troubles.

> >
> > context tracking exists for the sole purpose of tracking states that don't
> > have generic hooks. Those are syscalls and exceptions.
> >
> > Besides, rcu_user_exit() is more costly than rcu_irq_enter() which have been
> > designed for the very purpose of providing a fast RCU tracking for non sleepable
> > code (which needs rcu_user_exit()).
> >
> So rcu_user_exit is slower because it's okay to sleep after calling it?
> Would it be possible to defer the overhead until we actually try to
> sleep rather than doing it on entry? (I have no idea what's going on
> under the hood.)

That's a question for Paul.

> Anyway, irq_enter_from_user would solve this problem completely.


> >
> > I've been thinking about pushing down syscalls and exceptions to generic
> > handlers. It might work for syscalls btw. But many exceptions have only
> > arch handlers, or significant amount of work is done on the arch level
> > which might make use of RCU (eg: breakpoint handlers on x86).
> I'm trying to port the meat of the x86 syscall code to C. Maybe the
> result will generalize. The exit code is already in C (in -tip).

But please don't change such semantics along the way, it really doesn't help
to review the x86 low level changes if it's mixed up with fundamental context
tracking changes.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at