1. 25 6月, 2006 1 次提交
  2. 16 5月, 2006 1 次提交
  3. 29 3月, 2006 1 次提交
  4. 27 3月, 2006 1 次提交
  5. 26 3月, 2006 1 次提交
  6. 22 3月, 2006 2 次提交
  7. 09 3月, 2006 1 次提交
  8. 15 1月, 2006 2 次提交
  9. 13 1月, 2006 1 次提交
  10. 18 11月, 2005 1 次提交
  11. 12 11月, 2005 3 次提交
  12. 10 11月, 2005 1 次提交
  13. 09 11月, 2005 1 次提交
  14. 05 11月, 2005 1 次提交
  15. 03 11月, 2005 1 次提交
  16. 02 11月, 2005 3 次提交
    • N
      [ARM] 2948/1: new preemption safe copy_{to|from}_user implementation · fadab094
      Nicolas Pitre 提交于
      Patch from Nicolas Pitre
      
      This patch provides a preemption safe implementation of copy_to_user
      and copy_from_user based on the copy template also used for memcpy.
      It is enabled unconditionally when CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.  Otherwise if the
      configured architecture is not ARMv3 then it is enabled as well as it
      gives better performances at least on StrongARM and XScale cores.  If
      ARMv3 is not too affected or if it doesn't matter too much then
      uaccess.S could be removed altogether.
      Signed-off-by: NNicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
      Signed-off-by: NRussell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
      fadab094
    • N
      [ARM] 2947/1: copy template with new memcpy/memmove · 75494230
      Nicolas Pitre 提交于
      Patch from Nicolas Pitre
      
      This patch provides a new implementation for optimized memory copy
      functions on ARM.  It is made of two levels: a template that consists of
      the core copy code and separate files that define macros to be used with
      the core code depending on the type of copy needed. This allows for best
      performances while sharing the same core for implementing memcpy(),
      copy_from_user() and copy_to_user() for instance.
      
      Two reasons for this work:
      
      1) the current copy_to_user/copy_from_user implementation assumes no
         task switch will ever occur in the middle of each copied page making
         it completely unsafe with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.
      
      2) current copy implementations are measurably suboptimal and optimizing
         different implementations separately is a pain and more opportunities
         for bugs.
      
      The reason for (1) is the fact that copy inside user pages are performed
      with the ldm instruction which has no mean for testing user protections
      and could possibly race with process preemption bypassing the COW mechanism
      for example.  This is a longstanding issue that we said ought to be fixed
      for about two years now.  The solution is to substitute those ldm insns
      with a series of ldrt or strt insns to enforce user memory protection.
      At least on StrongARM and XScale cores the ldm is not faster than the
      equivalent ldr/str insns with a warm i-cache so there is no measurable
      performance degradation with that change. The fact that the copy code is
      a template makes it pretty easy to reuse the same core code as for memcpy
      and benefit from the same performance optimizations.
      
      Now (2) is best demonstrated with actual throughput measurements.
      First, here is a summary of memcopy tests performed on a StrongARM core:
      
      	PTR alignment	buffer size	kernel version	this version
      	------------------------------------------------------------
      	  aligned	     32		 59.73		107.43
      	unaligned	     32		 61.31		 74.72
      	  aligned	    100		132.47		136.15
      	unaligned	    100	    	103.84		123.76
      	  aligned	   4096		130.67		130.80
      	unaligned	   4096	    	130.68		130.64
      	  aligned	1048576		 68.03		68.18
      	unaligned	1048576		 68.03		68.18
      
      The buffer size is in bytes and the measured speed in MB/s.  The copy
      was performed repeatedly with given buffer and throughput averaged over
      3 seconds.
      
      Here we can see that the current kernel version has a higher entry cost
      that shows up with small buffers.  As buffer size grows both implementation
      converge to the same throughput.
      
      Now here's the exact same test performed on an XScale core (PXA255):
      
      	PTR alignment	buffer size	kernel version	this version
      	------------------------------------------------------------
      	  aligned	     32		 46.99		 77.58
      	unaligned	     32		 53.61		 59.59
      	  aligned	    100		107.19		136.59
      	unaligned	    100		 83.61		 97.58
      	  aligned	   4096		129.13		129.98
      	unaligned	   4096		128.36		128.53
      	  aligned	1048576		 53.76		 59.41
      	unaligned	1048576		 33.67		 56.96
      
      Again we can see the entry setup cost being higher for the current kernel
      before getting to the main copy loop.  Then throughput results converge
      as long as the buffer remains in the cache. Then the 1MB case shows more
      differences probably due to better pld placement and/or less instruction
      interlocks in this proposed implementation.
      
      Disclaimer: The PXA system was running with slower clocks than the
      StrongARM system so trying to infer any conclusion by comparing those
      separate sets of results side by side would be completely inappropriate.
      
      So...  What this patch does is to replace both memcpy and memmove with
      an implementation based on the provided copy code template.  The memmove
      code is kept separate since it is used only if the memory areas involved
      do overlap in which case the code is a transposition of the template but
      with the copy occurring in the opposite direction (trying to fit that
      mode into the template turned it into a mess not worth it for memmove
      alone).  And obviously both memcpy and memmove were tested with all kinds
      of pointer alignments and buffer sizes to exercise all code paths for
      correctness.
      
      The next patch will provide the now trivial replacement implementation
      copy_to_user and copy_from_user.
      Signed-off-by: NNicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
      Signed-off-by: NRussell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
      75494230
    • N
      [ARM] 2946/2: split --arch_clear_user() out of lib/uaccess.S · a0c6fdb9
      Nicolas Pitre 提交于
      Patch from Nicolas Pitre
      
      Required for future enhancement patches.
      Signed-off-by: NNicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
      Signed-off-by: NRussell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
      a0c6fdb9
  17. 31 10月, 2005 1 次提交
  18. 28 10月, 2005 1 次提交
    • N
      [ARM] 2930/1: optimized sha1 implementation for ARM · c09f9827
      Nicolas Pitre 提交于
      Patch from Nicolas Pitre
      
      Here's an ARM assembly SHA1 implementation to replace the default C
      version. It is approximately 50% faster than the generic C version. On
      an XScale processor running at 400MHz:
      	generic C version:	9.8 MB/s
      	my version:		14.5 MB/s
      This code is useful to quite a few callers in the tree:
      crypto/sha1.c:		sha_transform(sctx->state, sctx->buffer, temp);
      crypto/sha1.c:			sha_transform(sctx->state, &data[i], temp);
      drivers/char/random.c:		sha_transform(buf, (__u8 *)r->pool+i, buf + 5);
      drivers/char/random.c:	sha_transform(buf, (__u8 *)data, buf + 5);
      net/ipv4/syncookies.c:	sha_transform(tmp + 16, (__u8 *)tmp, tmp + 16 + 5);
      Signed-off-by: NNicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
      Seems to work fine on big-endian as well.
      Signed-off-by: NLennert Buytenhek <buytenh@wantstofly.org>
      Signed-off-by: NRussell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
      c09f9827
  19. 10 9月, 2005 1 次提交
  20. 10 8月, 2005 1 次提交
  21. 29 7月, 2005 1 次提交
  22. 28 7月, 2005 1 次提交
  23. 17 7月, 2005 1 次提交
  24. 16 7月, 2005 1 次提交
  25. 30 6月, 2005 1 次提交
  26. 20 6月, 2005 2 次提交
  27. 09 6月, 2005 1 次提交
  28. 19 4月, 2005 1 次提交
  29. 17 4月, 2005 2 次提交
    • R
      [PATCH] ARM: bitops · 684f970e
      Russell King 提交于
      Convert ARM bitop assembly to a macro.  All bitops follow the same
      format, so it's silly duplicating the code when only one or two
      instructions are different.
      Signed-off-by: NRussell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
      684f970e
    • L
      Linux-2.6.12-rc2 · 1da177e4
      Linus Torvalds 提交于
      Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
      even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
      archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
      3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
      git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
      infrastructure for it.
      
      Let it rip!
      1da177e4