From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
msuchanek@suse.de, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC WIP PATCH] powerpc/32: system call implement entry/exit logic in C
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 20:53:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fa79eac6-49e6-bbb0-5faa-7d52662a0cbe@c-s.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1585898897.1jwur86s6a.astroid@bobo.none>
Le 03/04/2020 à 09:33, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
> Christophe Leroy's on April 1, 2020 9:48 pm:
>>
>>
>> Le 31/03/2020 à 17:22, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
>>> That's first try to port PPC64 syscall entry/exit logic in C to PPC32.
>>> I've do the minimum to get it work. I have not reworked calls
>>> to sys_fork() and friends for instance.
>>>
>>> For the time being, it seems to work more or less but:
>>> - ping reports EINVAL on recvfrom
>>> - strace shows NULL instead of strings in call like open() for instance.
>>
>> For the two above problems, that's because system_call_exception()
>> doesn't set orig_gpr3 whereas DoSycall() does in entry_32.S . Is that
>> only done on PPC32 ?
>>
>> With the following line at the begining of system_call_exception(), it
>> works perfectly:
>>
>> regs->orig_gpr3 = r3;
>
> Oh great, nice work. We should be able to make some simple helpers or
> move some things a bit to reduce the amount of ifdefs in the C code.
> It doesn't look too bad though.
>
>> I will now focus on performance to see if we can do something about it.
>
> What's the performance difference between current asm code just with
> always saving NVGPRS vs C?
Done new measurement and sent a series. lower values now because the
time accounting was done twice as it was still in the ASM part.
Before the series, 311 cycles for a null_syscall
If adding SAVE_NVGPRS to the entry macro, 335 cycles
First patch: 353 cycles ie +13,5%
After a few changes, including conditional saving of non volatile
registers, I get 325 cycles that is only +4,5%. I thing that's acceptable.
Do you see a problem with still saving non volatile registers only when
required ?
Christophe
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-05 18:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-31 15:22 [RFC WIP PATCH] powerpc/32: system call implement entry/exit logic in C Christophe Leroy
2020-04-01 11:48 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-04-03 7:33 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-04-05 18:53 ` Christophe Leroy [this message]
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=fa79eac6-49e6-bbb0-5faa-7d52662a0cbe@c-s.fr \
--to=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=msuchanek@suse.de \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.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).