From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ardb@kernel.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/preempt: add PREEMPT_DYNAMIC using static keys
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 23:05:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211213220501.GB786870@lothringen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211109172408.49641-6-mark.rutland@arm.com>
On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 05:24:07PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Where an architecture selects HAVE_STATIC_CALL but not
> HAVE_STATIC_CALL_INLINE, each static call has an out-of-line trampoline
> which will either branch to a callee or return to the caller.
>
> On such architectures, a number of constraints can conspire to make
> those trampolines more complicated and potentially less useful than we'd
> like. For example:
>
> * Hardware and software control flow integrity schemes can require the
> additition of "landing pad" instructions (e.g. `BTI` for arm64), which
> will also be present at the "real" callee.
>
> * Limited branch ranges can require that trampolines generate or load an
> address into a registter and perform an indirect brach (or at least
> have a slow path that does so). This loses some of the benefits of
> having a direct branch.
>
> * Interaction with SW CFI schemes can be complicated and fragile, e.g.
> requiring that we can recognise idiomatic codegen and remove
> indirections understand, at least until clang proves more helpful
> mechanisms for dealing with this.
>
> For PREEMPT_DYNAMIC, we don't need the full power of static calls, as we
> really only need to enable/disable specific preemption functions. We can
> achieve the same effect without a number of the pain points above by
> using static keys to fold early return cases into the preemption
> functions themselves rather than in an out-of-line trampoline,
> effectively inlining the trampoline into the start of the function.
>
> For arm64, this results in good code generation, e.g. the
> dynamic_cond_resched() wrapper looks as follows (with the first `B` being
> replaced with a `NOP` when the function is disabled):
>
> | <dynamic_cond_resched>:
> | bti c
> | b <dynamic_cond_resched+0x10>
> | mov w0, #0x0 // #0
> | ret
> | mrs x0, sp_el0
> | ldr x0, [x0, #8]
> | cbnz x0, <dynamic_cond_resched+0x8>
> | paciasp
> | stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
> | mov x29, sp
> | bl <preempt_schedule_common>
> | mov w0, #0x1 // #1
> | ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16
> | autiasp
> | ret
>
> ... compared to the regular form of the function:
>
> | <__cond_resched>:
> | bti c
> | mrs x0, sp_el0
> | ldr x1, [x0, #8]
> | cbz x1, <__cond_resched+0x18>
> | mov w0, #0x0 // #0
> | ret
> | paciasp
> | stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
> | mov x29, sp
> | bl <preempt_schedule_common>
> | mov w0, #0x1 // #1
> | ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16
> | autiasp
> | ret
>
> Any architecture which implements static keys should be able to use this
> to implement PREEMPT_DYNAMIC with similar cost to non-inlined static
> calls.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Anyone has an opinion on that? Can we do better on the arm64 static call side
or should we resign ourself to using that static keys direction?
Also I assume that, sooner or later, arm64 will eventually need a static call
implementation....
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-13 22:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-09 17:24 [PATCH 0/6] arm64 / sched/preempt: support PREEMPT_DYNAMIC with static keys Mark Rutland
2021-11-09 17:24 ` [PATCH 1/6] sched/preempt: move PREEMPT_DYNAMIC logic later Mark Rutland
2021-11-09 17:24 ` [PATCH 2/6] sched/preempt: refactor sched_dynamic_update() Mark Rutland
2021-12-10 15:13 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-02-02 15:13 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-02 16:01 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-02-02 18:08 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-03 11:52 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-11-09 17:24 ` [PATCH 3/6] sched/preempt: simplify irqentry_exit_cond_resched() callers Mark Rutland
2021-11-09 17:24 ` [PATCH 4/6] sched/preempt: decouple HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC from GENERIC_ENTRY Mark Rutland
2021-11-09 17:24 ` [PATCH 5/6] sched/preempt: add PREEMPT_DYNAMIC using static keys Mark Rutland
2021-12-13 22:05 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2022-02-02 15:29 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-03 22:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-02 23:21 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-02-03 9:51 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-03 11:34 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-02-03 12:27 ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-09 17:24 ` [PATCH 6/6] arm64: support PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mark Rutland
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=20211213220501.GB786870@lothringen \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).