[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH V6 3/8] x86/entry: Move PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS out of error_entry()
On 28.04.22 02:33, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 1:45 AM Borislav Petkov <> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:10:50PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>> From: Lai Jiangshan <>
>>> The macro idtentry calls error_entry() unconditionally even on XENPV.
>>> But the code XENPV needs in error_entry() is PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS only.
>>> And error_entry() also calls sync_regs() which has to deal with the
>>> case of XENPV via an extra branch so that it doesn't copy the pt_regs.
>> What extra branch?
>> Do you mean the
>> if (regs != eregs)
>> test in sync_regs()?
> Hello, Borislav
> Yes.
>> I'm confused. Are you, per chance, aiming to optimize XENPV here or
>> what's up?
> The branch in sync_regs() can be optimized out for the non-XENPV case
> since XENPV doesn't call sync_regs() after patch5 which makes XENPV
> not call error_entry().
> The aim of this patch and most of the patchset is to make
> error_entry() be able to be converted to C. And XENPV cases can
> also be optimized in the patchset although it is not the major main.
>>> And PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS in error_entry() makes the stack not return to
>>> its original place when the function returns, which means it is not
>>> possible to convert it to a C function.
>>> Move PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS out of error_entry(), add a function to wrap
>>> PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS and call it before error_entry().
>>> The new function call adds two instructions (CALL and RET) for every
>>> interrupt or exception.
>> Not only - it pushes all the regs in PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS too. I don't
>> understand why that matters here? It was done in error_entry anyway.
> Compared to the original code, adding the new function call adds two
> instructions (CALL and RET) for every interrupt or exception.
> PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS is not extra instructions added here.
> Since this patch adds extra overhead (CALL and RET), the changelog
> has to explain why it is worth it not just for converting ASM to C.
> The explanation in the changelog is that it can be offsetted by later
> reduced overhead.

I think you could avoid the extra call/ret by doing something like:

jmp error_exit

... and use this instead of patch 5:

ALTERNATIVE "call error_entry_push_and_save; movq %rax, %rsp", \
"call push_and_clear_regs", X86_FEATURE_XENPV


[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-keys][unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-02 14:43    [W:0.039 / U:0.856 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site