From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753222AbbCJNV4 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:21:56 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com ([209.85.212.176]:33514 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751807AbbCJNVy (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:21:54 -0400
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:21:48 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>, Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: save user rsp in pt_regs->sp on SYSCALL64
 fastpath
Message-ID: <20150310132147.GB26185@gmail.com>
References: <1425926364-9526-1-git-send-email-dvlasenk@redhat.com>
 <1425926364-9526-4-git-send-email-dvlasenk@redhat.com>
 <20150310125151.GB21686@gmail.com>
 <54FEEF0D.5080505@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54FEEF0D.5080505@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> wrote:

> > So there are now +2 instructions (5 instead of 3) in the 
> > system_call path, but there are -2 instructions in the SYSRETQ 
> > path,
> 
> Unfortunately, no. [...]

So I assumed that it was an equivalent transformation, given that none 
of the changelogs spelled out the increase in overhead ...

> [...] There is only this change in SYSRETQ path, which simply 
> changes where we get RSP from:
> 
> @@ -293,7 +289,7 @@ ret_from_sys_call:
>  	CFI_REGISTER	rip,rcx
>  	movq	EFLAGS(%rsp),%r11
>  	/*CFI_REGISTER	rflags,r11*/
> -	movq	PER_CPU_VAR(old_rsp), %rsp
> +	movq	RSP(%rsp),%rsp
>  	/*
>  	 * 64bit SYSRET restores rip from rcx,
>  	 * rflags from r11 (but RF and VM bits are forced to 0),
> 
> Most likely, no change in execution speed here.
> At best, it is one cycle faster somewhere in address generation unit
> because for PER_CPU_VAR() address evaluation, GS base is nonzero.
> 
> Since this patch does add two extra MOVs,
> I did benchmark these patches. They add exactly one cycle
> to system call code path on my Sandy Bridge CPU.

Hm, but that's the wrong direction, we should try to make it faster, 
and to clean it up - but making it slower without really good reasons 
isn't good.

Is 'usersp' really that much of a complication?

Thanks,

	Ingo