Re: Proposal for finishing the 64-bit x86 syscall cleanup
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Tue Aug 25 2015 - 04:18:52 EST
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all-
> I want to (try to) mostly or fully get rid of the messy bits (as
> opposed to the hardware-bs-forced bits) of the 64-bit syscall asm.
> There are two major conceptual things that are in the way.
> Thing 1: partial pt_regs
> 64-bit fast path syscalls don't fully initialize pt_regs: bx, bp, and
> r12-r15 are uninitialized. Some syscalls require them to be
> initialized, and they have special awful stubs to do it. The entry
> and exit tracing code (except for phase1 tracing) also need them
> initialized, and they have their own messy initialization. Compat
> syscalls are their own private little mess here.
> This gets in the way of all kinds of cleanups, because C code can't
> switch between the full and partial pt_regs states.
> I can see two ways out. We could remove the optimization entirely,
> which consists of pushing and popping six more registers and adds
> about ten cycles to fast path syscalls on Sandy Bridge. It also
> simplifies and presumably speeds up the slow paths.
So out of hundreds of regular system calls there's only a handful of such system
triton:~/tip> git grep stub arch/x86/entry/syscalls/
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl:2 i386 fork sys_fork stub32_fork
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl:11 i386 execve sys_execve stub32_execve
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl:119 i386 sigreturn sys_sigreturn stub32_sigreturn
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl:120 i386 clone sys_clone stub32_clone
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl:173 i386 rt_sigreturn sys_rt_sigreturn stub32_rt_sigreturn
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl:190 i386 vfork sys_vfork stub32_vfork
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl:358 i386 execveat sys_execveat stub32_execveat
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl:15 64 rt_sigreturn stub_rt_sigreturn
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl:56 common clone stub_clone
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl:57 common fork stub_fork
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl:58 common vfork stub_vfork
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl:59 64 execve stub_execve
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl:322 64 execveat stub_execveat
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl:513 x32 rt_sigreturn stub_x32_rt_sigreturn
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl:520 x32 execve stub_x32_execve
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl:545 x32 execveat stub_x32_execveat
and none of them are super performance critical system calls, so no way would I go
for unconditionally saving/restoring all of ptregs, just to make it a bit simpler
for these syscalls.
> We could also annotate with syscalls need full regs and jump to the
> slow path for them. This would leave the fast path unchanged (we
> could duplicate the sys call table so that regs-requiring syscalls
> would turn into some asm that switches to the slow path). We'd make
> the syscall table say something like:
> 59 64 execve sys_execve:regs
> The fast path would have exactly identical performance and the slow
> path would presumably speed up. The down side would be additional
The 'fast path performance unchanged' aspect definitely gives me warm fuzzy
Your suggested annotation would essentially be a syntactical cleanup, in that we'd
auto-generate the stubs during build, instead of the current ugly open coded
stubs? Or did you have something else in mind?
> Thing 2: vdso compilation with binutils that doesn't support .cfi directives
> Userspace debuggers really like having the vdso properly
> CFI-annotated, and the 32-bit fast syscall entries are annotatied
> manually in hexidecimal. AFAIK Jan Beulich is the only person who
> understands it.
> I want to be able to change the entries a little bit to clean them up
> (and possibly rework the SYSCALL32 and SYSENTER register tricks, which
> currently suck), but it's really, really messy right now because of
> the hex CFI stuff. Could we just drop the CFI annotations if the
> binutils version is too old or even just require new enough binutils
> to build 32-bit and compat kernels?
We could also test for those directives and not generate debuginfo on such
tooling. Not generating debuginfo is still much better than failing the build.
I'm all for removing the hexa encoded debuginfo.
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/