From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756758AbcASBdW (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2016 20:33:22 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:35012 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756772AbcASBdV (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2016 20:33:21 -0500 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <20160119011026.GA12911@pd.tnic> References: <1452972124-7380-1-git-send-email-brgerst@gmail.com> <20160116193658.GC32085@pd.tnic> <20160117103337.GC8549@pd.tnic> <20160118181457.GG12651@pd.tnic> <20160118185107.GI12651@pd.tnic> <20160119011026.GA12911@pd.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: static_cpu_has_safe: discard dynamic check after init From: "H. Peter Anvin" Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:33:03 -0800 To: Borislav Petkov , Brian Gerst CC: the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ingo Molnar , Denys Vlasenko , Andy Lutomirski , Linus Torvalds Message-ID: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On January 18, 2016 5:10:26 PM PST, Borislav Petkov wrote: >On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 07:51:07PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> [45] .static_cpu_has PROGBITS ffffffff97aa655b 16ea655b >> 00000000000002df 0000000000000000 AX 0 0 1 > >Ok, staring at this section was wrong. I went and looked at >the .s file and now it clicked: gcc inlines those calls to >__static_cpu_has_safe of the dynamic jump target: > > .loc 4 538 0 > movl $125, %edi #, > call __static_cpu_has_safe # >.LBE885: >.LBE886: >.LBE914: > .loc 1 240 0 > testb %al, %al # D.30157 > je .L150 #, > jmp .L151 # >.L152: >.LBB915: >.LBB909: >.LBB905: >.LBB893: >.LBB892: > .loc 4 538 0 > movl $154, %edi #, > call __static_cpu_has_safe # >.LBE892: >.LBE893: >.LBE905: > .loc 7 431 0 > testb %al, %al # D.30157 > jne .L154 #, > >which turn into: > > 751: bf 7d 00 00 00 mov $0x7d,%edi > 756: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 75b > 75b: 84 c0 test %al,%al > 75d: 74 a3 je 702 > 75f: eb 90 jmp 6f1 > 761: bf 9a 00 00 00 mov $0x9a,%edi > 766: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 76b > 76b: 84 c0 test %al,%al > >That's like 28 bytes in this particular case, which is 14 per call >site, >on average. > >So grepping through my tailored vmlinux, it has 35 entries with >X86_FEATURE_ALWAYS in .altinstructions X 14 = 490 bytes. > >So yeah, we probably should do this, allyesconfig should give more >savings. > >One thing I'd probably do differently is not call the throwaway section >.static_cpu_has but something like .altinstr_temporary or so and put it >after the replacement insns: > >.altinstr_replacement : AT(ADDR(.altinstr_replacement) - LOAD_OFFSET) { > *(.altinstr_replacement) > *(.altinstr_temporary) > } > >so that we know those instructions belong to the alternatives >mechanism. >They'll get discared too, of course. > >I could just as well be talking a lot of crap, it is waay too late >here. Why the f do we call a subroutine for what amounts to a single bt or test instruction? -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse brevity and formatting.