Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190913072237.GA12381@zn.tnic> <20190917201021.evoxxj7vkcb45rpg@treble>
In-Reply-To: <20190917201021.evoxxj7vkcb45rpg@treble>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:45:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjDiDOcz2GHC88rV8gySCMZZko8PFW-ywJDkeY5n+je9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Improve memset
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, x86-ml <x86@kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 1:10 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Could it instead do this?
>
>         ALTERNATIVE_2("call memset_orig",
>                       "call memset_rep",        X86_FEATURE_REP_GOOD,
>                       "rep; stosb",             X86_FEATURE_ERMS)
>
> Then the "reverse alternatives" feature wouldn't be needed anyway.

That sounds better, but I'm a bit nervous about the whole thing
because who knows when the alternatives code itself internally uses
memset() and then we have a nasty little chicken-and-egg problem.

Also, for it to make sense to inline rep stosb, I think we also need
to just make the calling conventions for the alternative calls be that
they _don't_ clobber other registers than the usual rep ones
(cx/di/si). Otherwise one big code generation advantage of inlining
the thing just goes away.

On the whole I get the feeling that this is all painful complexity and
we shouldn't do it. At least not without some hard performance numbers
for some huge improvement, which I don't think we've seen.

Because I find the thing fascinating conceptually, but am not at all
convinced I want to deal with the pain in practice ;)

              Linus