On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 09:10:11PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:32:06PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > What I actually see in the listing is:
> >
> > decl __percpu_prefix:__preempt_count
> > je 1f:
> > ....
> > 1:
> > call ___preempt_schedule
> >
> > So it puts the "call ___preempt_schedule" in the slow path.
>
> Ah yes indeed. Same difference though.
>
> > I also don't see how that would be related to the use of the asm
> > statement in the __preempt_schedule() macro. Doesn't the use of
> > unlikely() in preempt_enable() put the call in the slow path?
>
> Sadly no, unlikely() and asm_goto don't work well together. But the slow
> path or not isn't the reason we do the asm call thing.
>
> > #define preempt_enable() \
> > do { \
> > barrier(); \
> > if (unlikely(preempt_count_dec_and_test())) \
> > preempt_schedule(); \
> > } while (0)
> >
> > Also, why is the thunk needed? Any reason why preempt_enable() can't be
> > called directly from C?
>
> That would make the call-site save registers and increase the size of
> every preempt_enable(). By using the thunk we can do callee saved
> registers and avoid blowing up the call site.
So is the goal to optimize for size? If I replace the calls to
__preempt_schedule[_notrace]() with real C calls and remove the thunks,
it only adds about 2k to vmlinux.
There are two ways to fix the warnings:
1. get rid of the thunks and call the C functions directly; or
2. add the stack pointer to the asm() statement output operand list to
ensure a stack frame gets created in the caller function before the
call. (Note this still allows the thunks to do callee saved registers.)
I like #1 better, but maybe I'm still missing the point of the thunks.
--
Josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
