lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: vdso32/syscall.S: do not load __USER32_DS to %ss

* Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:

> Now we can do a fun hack on top. On Intel, we have
> sysenter/sysexitl and, on AMD, we have syscall/sysretl. But, if I
> read the docs right, Intel has sysretl, too. So we can ditch
> sysexit entirely, since this mechanism no longer has any need to
> keep the entry and exit conventions matching.

So this only affects 32-bit vdsos, because on 64-bit both Intel and
AMD have and use SYSCALL/SYSRET.

So my question would be: what's the performance difference between
INT80 and sysenter entries on 32-bit, on modern CPUs?

If it's not too horrible (say below 100 cycles) then we could say that
we start out the simplification and robustification by switching Intel
over to INT80 + SYSRET on 32-bit, and once we know the 32-bit SYSRET
and all the other simplifications work fine we implement the
SYSENTER-hack on top of that?

Is there any user-space code that relies on being able to execute an
open coded SYSENTER, or are we shielded via the vDSO?

Doing it this way would make it a lot more practical to pull off, as
the incentive to implement the SYSENTER hack on Intel CPUs will be
significant: dozens of cycles on 32-bit. Also, I have no problem with
putting some pressure on Intel developers, for the absolutely
indefensible horror interface that SYSENTER turned out to be! ;-)

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-25 10:41    [W:0.126 / U:0.640 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site