Re: [PATCH 01/23] all: syscall wrappers: add documentation
From: Yury Norov
Date: Thu May 26 2016 - 20:38:16 EST
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:29:45PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:48:19PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 02:28:21PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 23:01:06 +0200
> > >
> > > > On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 1:50:39 PM CEST David Miller wrote:
> > > >> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > > >> Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 22:47:33 +0200
> > > >>
> > > >> > If we use the normal calling conventions, we could remove these overrides
> > > >> > along with the respective special-case handling in glibc. None of them
> > > >> > look particularly performance-sensitive, but I could be wrong there.
> > > >>
> > > >> You could set the lowest bit in the system call entry pointer to indicate
> > > >> the upper-half clears should be elided.
> > > >
> > > > Right, but that would introduce an extra conditional branch in the syscall
> > > > hotpath, and likely eliminate the gains from passing the loff_t arguments
> > > > in a single register instead of a pair.
> > >
> > > Ok, then, how much are you really gaining from avoiding a 'shift' and
> > > an 'or' to build the full 64-bit value? 3 cycles? Maybe 4?
> > 4 cycles in kernel and ~same cost in glibc to create a pair.
> It would take a single instruction per argument in the kernel to do
> shift+or and maybe 1-2 more instructions to move the remaining arguments
> in place (we do this for a few wrappers in arch/arm64/kernel/entry32.S).
> And the glibc counterpart.
> > And 8 'mov's that exist for every syscall, even yield().
> > > And the executing the wrappers, those have a non-trivial cost too.
> > The cost is pretty trivial though. See kernel/compat_wrapper.o:
> > COMPAT_SYSCALL_WRAP2(creat, const char __user *, pathname, umode_t, mode);
> > 0: a9bf7bfd stp x29, x30, [sp,#-16]!
> > 4: 910003fd mov x29, sp
> > 8: 2a0003e0 mov w0, w0
> > c: 94000000 bl 0 <sys_creat>
> > 10: a8c17bfd ldp x29, x30, [sp],#16
> > 14: d65f03c0 ret
> I would say the above could be more expensive than 8 movs (16 bytes to
> write, read, a branch and a ret). You can also add the I-cache locality,
> having wrappers for each syscalls instead of a single place for zeroing
> the upper half (where no other wrapper is necessary).
> Can we trick the compiler into doing a tail call optimisation. This
> could have simply been:
> COMPAT_SYSCALL_WRAP2(creat, ...):
> mov w0, w0
> b <sys_creat>
What you talk about was in my initial version. But Heiko insisted on having all
Grep your email for discussion.
> > > Cost wise, this seems like it all cancels out in the end, but what
> > > do I know?
> > I think you know something, and I also think Heiko and other s390 guys
> > know something as well. So I'd like to listen their arguments here.
> > For me spark64 way is looking reasonable only because it's really simple
> > and takes less coding. I'll try it on some branch and share here what happened.
> The kernel code will definitely look simpler ;). It would be good to see
> if there actually is any performance impact. Even with 16 more cycles on
> syscall entry, would they be lost in the noise? You don't need a full
> implementation, just some dummy mov x0, x0 on the entry path.