All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, luto@kernel.org
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	arnd@arndb.de, vincenzo.frascino@arm.com, x86@kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 08/12] lib: vdso: allow arches to provide vdso data pointer
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:16:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b5fddcf8-99ff-fc0d-40c0-0eb81ad4e94a@c-s.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d2de3211-9d7c-513e-fe0f-8bdce623fb65@c-s.fr>

Thomas, Andy,

Le 15/01/2020 à 07:15, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> 
> 
> Le 15/01/2020 à 00:06, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:
>>>   static __maybe_unused int
>>> +#ifdef VDSO_GETS_VD_PTR_FROM_ARCH
>>> +__cvdso_clock_gettime_common(const struct vdso_data *vd, clockid_t 
>>> clock,
>>> +              struct __kernel_timespec *ts)
>>> +{
>>> +#else
>>>   __cvdso_clock_gettime_common(clockid_t clock, struct 
>>> __kernel_timespec *ts)
>>>   {
>>>       const struct vdso_data *vd = __arch_get_vdso_data();
>>> +#endif
>>>       u32 msk;
>>
>> If we do that, then there is no point in propagating this to the inner
>> functions. It's perfectly fine to have this distinction at the outermost
>> level.
> 
> In v2, I did it at the arch level (see 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1214983/). Andy was concerned about 
> it being suboptimal for arches which (unlike powerpc) have PC related 
> data addressing mode.
> 
> Wouldn't it be the same issue if doing it at the outermost level of 
> generic VDSO ?

Any opinion on this ?

 From your point of view, what should I do:
A/ __arch_get_vdso_data() handled entirely at arch level and arches 
handing over the vdso data pointer to generic C VDSO functions all the 
time (as in my v2 series) ?
B/ Data pointer being handed over all the way up for arches wanting to 
do so, no changes at all for others (as in my v3 series) ?
C/ __arch_get_vdso_data() being called at the outermost generic level 
for arches not interested in handling data pointer from the caller (as 
suggested by Thomas) ?

Andy, with A/ you were concerned about arches being able to do PC 
related accesses. Would it be an issue for C/ as well ? If not, I guess 
C/ would be cleaner than B/ allthought not as clean as A which doesn't 
add any #ifdefery at all.

Thanks
Christophe

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, luto@kernel.org
Cc: arnd@arndb.de, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	vincenzo.frascino@arm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 08/12] lib: vdso: allow arches to provide vdso data pointer
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:16:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b5fddcf8-99ff-fc0d-40c0-0eb81ad4e94a@c-s.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d2de3211-9d7c-513e-fe0f-8bdce623fb65@c-s.fr>

Thomas, Andy,

Le 15/01/2020 à 07:15, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> 
> 
> Le 15/01/2020 à 00:06, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:
>>>   static __maybe_unused int
>>> +#ifdef VDSO_GETS_VD_PTR_FROM_ARCH
>>> +__cvdso_clock_gettime_common(const struct vdso_data *vd, clockid_t 
>>> clock,
>>> +              struct __kernel_timespec *ts)
>>> +{
>>> +#else
>>>   __cvdso_clock_gettime_common(clockid_t clock, struct 
>>> __kernel_timespec *ts)
>>>   {
>>>       const struct vdso_data *vd = __arch_get_vdso_data();
>>> +#endif
>>>       u32 msk;
>>
>> If we do that, then there is no point in propagating this to the inner
>> functions. It's perfectly fine to have this distinction at the outermost
>> level.
> 
> In v2, I did it at the arch level (see 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1214983/). Andy was concerned about 
> it being suboptimal for arches which (unlike powerpc) have PC related 
> data addressing mode.
> 
> Wouldn't it be the same issue if doing it at the outermost level of 
> generic VDSO ?

Any opinion on this ?

 From your point of view, what should I do:
A/ __arch_get_vdso_data() handled entirely at arch level and arches 
handing over the vdso data pointer to generic C VDSO functions all the 
time (as in my v2 series) ?
B/ Data pointer being handed over all the way up for arches wanting to 
do so, no changes at all for others (as in my v3 series) ?
C/ __arch_get_vdso_data() being called at the outermost generic level 
for arches not interested in handling data pointer from the caller (as 
suggested by Thomas) ?

Andy, with A/ you were concerned about arches being able to do PC 
related accesses. Would it be an issue for C/ as well ? If not, I guess 
C/ would be cleaner than B/ allthought not as clean as A which doesn't 
add any #ifdefery at all.

Thanks
Christophe

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, luto@kernel.org
Cc: arnd@arndb.de, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	vincenzo.frascino@arm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 08/12] lib: vdso: allow arches to provide vdso data pointer
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:16:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b5fddcf8-99ff-fc0d-40c0-0eb81ad4e94a@c-s.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d2de3211-9d7c-513e-fe0f-8bdce623fb65@c-s.fr>

Thomas, Andy,

Le 15/01/2020 à 07:15, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> 
> 
> Le 15/01/2020 à 00:06, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:
>>>   static __maybe_unused int
>>> +#ifdef VDSO_GETS_VD_PTR_FROM_ARCH
>>> +__cvdso_clock_gettime_common(const struct vdso_data *vd, clockid_t 
>>> clock,
>>> +              struct __kernel_timespec *ts)
>>> +{
>>> +#else
>>>   __cvdso_clock_gettime_common(clockid_t clock, struct 
>>> __kernel_timespec *ts)
>>>   {
>>>       const struct vdso_data *vd = __arch_get_vdso_data();
>>> +#endif
>>>       u32 msk;
>>
>> If we do that, then there is no point in propagating this to the inner
>> functions. It's perfectly fine to have this distinction at the outermost
>> level.
> 
> In v2, I did it at the arch level (see 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1214983/). Andy was concerned about 
> it being suboptimal for arches which (unlike powerpc) have PC related 
> data addressing mode.
> 
> Wouldn't it be the same issue if doing it at the outermost level of 
> generic VDSO ?

Any opinion on this ?

 From your point of view, what should I do:
A/ __arch_get_vdso_data() handled entirely at arch level and arches 
handing over the vdso data pointer to generic C VDSO functions all the 
time (as in my v2 series) ?
B/ Data pointer being handed over all the way up for arches wanting to 
do so, no changes at all for others (as in my v3 series) ?
C/ __arch_get_vdso_data() being called at the outermost generic level 
for arches not interested in handling data pointer from the caller (as 
suggested by Thomas) ?

Andy, with A/ you were concerned about arches being able to do PC 
related accesses. Would it be an issue for C/ as well ? If not, I guess 
C/ would be cleaner than B/ allthought not as clean as A which doesn't 
add any #ifdefery at all.

Thanks
Christophe

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2020-01-16  9:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-13 17:08 [RFC PATCH v3 00/12] powerpc: switch VDSO to C implementation Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08 ` [RFC PATCH v3 01/12] powerpc/64: Don't provide time functions in compat VDSO32 Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08 ` [RFC PATCH v3 02/12] powerpc/vdso: Switch VDSO to generic C implementation Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08 ` [RFC PATCH v3 03/12] lib: vdso: mark __cvdso_clock_getres() as static Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08 ` [RFC PATCH v3 04/12] lib: vdso: inline do_hres() and do_coarse() Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08 ` [RFC PATCH v3 05/12] lib: vdso: Avoid duplication in __cvdso_clock_getres() Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08 ` [RFC PATCH v3 06/12] lib: vdso: __iter_div_u64_rem() is suboptimal for 32 bit time Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-14 11:31   ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-01-14 11:31     ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-01-14 11:31     ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-01-13 17:08 ` [RFC PATCH v3 07/12] powerpc/vdso: simplify __get_datapage() Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08 ` [RFC PATCH v3 08/12] lib: vdso: allow arches to provide vdso data pointer Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-14 23:06   ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-01-14 23:06     ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-01-14 23:06     ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-01-15  6:15     ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-15  6:15       ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-15  6:15       ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-16  9:16       ` Christophe Leroy [this message]
2020-01-16  9:16         ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-16  9:16         ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-16 10:35         ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-01-16 10:35           ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-01-16 10:35           ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-01-16 20:22           ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-01-16 20:22             ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-01-16 20:22             ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-01-13 17:08 ` [RFC PATCH v3 09/12] powerpc/vdso: provide inline alternative to __get_datapage() Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08 ` [RFC PATCH v3 10/12] powerpc/vdso: provide vdso data pointer from the ASM caller Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08 ` [RFC PATCH v3 11/12] lib: vdso: split clock verification out of __arch_get_hw_counter() Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08 ` [RFC PATCH v3 12/12] powerpc/vdso: provide __arch_is_hw_counter_valid() Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-13 17:08   ` Christophe Leroy

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=b5fddcf8-99ff-fc0d-40c0-0eb81ad4e94a@c-s.fr \
    --to=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.