1. 02 6月, 2015 1 次提交
    • I
      x86/debug: Remove perpetually broken, unmaintainable dwarf annotations · 131484c8
      Ingo Molnar 提交于
      So the dwarf2 annotations in low level assembly code have
      become an increasing hindrance: unreadable, messy macros
      mixed into some of the most security sensitive code paths
      of the Linux kernel.
      
      These debug info annotations don't even buy the upstream
      kernel anything: dwarf driven stack unwinding has caused
      problems in the past so it's out of tree, and the upstream
      kernel only uses the much more robust framepointers based
      stack unwinding method.
      
      In addition to that there's a steady, slow bitrot going
      on with these annotations, requiring frequent fixups.
      There's no tooling and no functionality upstream that
      keeps it correct.
      
      So burn down the sick forest, allowing new, healthier growth:
      
         27 files changed, 350 insertions(+), 1101 deletions(-)
      
      Someone who has the willingness and time to do this
      properly can attempt to reintroduce dwarf debuginfo in x86
      assembly code plus dwarf unwinding from first principles,
      with the following conditions:
      
       - it should be maximally readable, and maximally low-key to
         'ordinary' code reading and maintenance.
      
       - find a build time method to insert dwarf annotations
         automatically in the most common cases, for pop/push
         instructions that manipulate the stack pointer. This could
         be done for example via a preprocessing step that just
         looks for common patterns - plus special annotations for
         the few cases where we want to depart from the default.
         We have hundreds of CFI annotations, so automating most of
         that makes sense.
      
       - it should come with build tooling checks that ensure that
         CFI annotations are sensible. We've seen such efforts from
         the framepointer side, and there's no reason it couldn't be
         done on the dwarf side.
      
      Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
      Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
      Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
      Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
      Cc: Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com
      Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
      Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
      Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
      Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
      Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
      Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
      Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      131484c8
  2. 05 3月, 2015 1 次提交
  3. 21 7月, 2011 1 次提交
  4. 01 3月, 2011 1 次提交
  5. 05 5月, 2010 1 次提交
  6. 14 1月, 2010 1 次提交
    • L
      x86-64: support native xadd rwsem implementation · bafaecd1
      Linus Torvalds 提交于
      This one is much faster than the spinlock based fallback rwsem code,
      with certain artifical benchmarks having shown 300%+ improvement on
      threaded page faults etc.
      
      Again, note the 32767-thread limit here. So this really does need that
      whole "make rwsem_count_t be 64-bit and fix the BIAS values to match"
      extension on top of it, but that is conceptually a totally independent
      issue.
      
      NOT TESTED! The original patch that this all was based on were tested by
      KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, but maybe I screwed up something when I created the
      cleaned-up series, so caveat emptor..
      
      Also note that it _may_ be a good idea to mark some more registers
      clobbered on x86-64 in the inline asms instead of saving/restoring them.
      They are inline functions, but they are only used in places where there
      are not a lot of live registers _anyway_, so doing for example the
      clobbers of %r8-%r11 in the asm wouldn't make the fast-path code any
      worse, and would make the slow-path code smaller.
      
      (Not that the slow-path really matters to that degree. Saving a few
      unnecessary registers is the _least_ of our problems when we hit the slow
      path. The instruction/cycle counting really only matters in the fast
      path).
      Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      LKML-Reference: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001121810410.17145@localhost.localdomain>
      Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
      bafaecd1