lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] x86/asm/entry/64: do not TRACE_IRQS fast SYSRET64 path
On 03/25/2015 06:29 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> SYSRET code path has a small irq-off block.
>> On this code path, TRACE_IRQS_ON can't be called right before interrupts
>> are enabled for real, we can't clobber registers there.
>> So current code does it earlier, in a safe place.
>>
>> But with this, TRACE_IRQS_OFF/ON frames just two fast instructions,
>> which is ridiculous: now most of irq-off block is _outside_ of the framing.
>>
>> Do the same thing that we do on SYSCALL entry: do not track this irq-off block,
>> it is very small to ever cause noticeable irq latency.
>>
>> Be careful: make sure that "jnz int_ret_from_sys_call_irqs_off" now does
>> invoke TRACE_IRQS_OFF - move int_ret_from_sys_call_irqs_off label before
>> TRACE_IRQS_OFF.
>
>> @@ -345,8 +346,8 @@ tracesys_phase2:
>> */
>> GLOBAL(int_ret_from_sys_call)
>> DISABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_NONE)
>> - TRACE_IRQS_OFF
>> int_ret_from_sys_call_irqs_off:
>> + TRACE_IRQS_OFF
>> movl $_TIF_ALLWORK_MASK,%edi
>> /* edi: mask to check */
>
> This latter trick absolutely needs a comment, to keep future lockdep
> developers from wondering about the mismatch and the weird label
> placement ...

Unsure how to format it.

How about:


DISABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_NONE)
int_ret_from_sys_call_irqs_off: /* jumps come here with irqs off */
TRACE_IRQS_OFF



(In truth, there is only one jump as of now, but using pliral
"jumps" if that would change)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-25 19:01    [W:0.071 / U:0.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site