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;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 08/12] lib: vdso: allow arches to provide vdso data
 pointer
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, luto@kernel.org
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, arnd@arndb.de,
        vincenzo.frascino@arm.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1578934751.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
 <381e547dbb3c48fd39d6cf208033bba38ad048fb.1578934751.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
 <87ftghbpuu.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <d2de3211-9d7c-513e-fe0f-8bdce623fb65@c-s.fr>
Message-ID: <b5fddcf8-99ff-fc0d-40c0-0eb81ad4e94a@c-s.fr>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:16:18 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d2de3211-9d7c-513e-fe0f-8bdce623fb65@c-s.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thomas, Andy,

Le 15/01/2020 à 07:15, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> 
> 
> Le 15/01/2020 à 00:06, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:
>>>   static __maybe_unused int
>>> +#ifdef VDSO_GETS_VD_PTR_FROM_ARCH
>>> +__cvdso_clock_gettime_common(const struct vdso_data *vd, clockid_t 
>>> clock,
>>> +              struct __kernel_timespec *ts)
>>> +{
>>> +#else
>>>   __cvdso_clock_gettime_common(clockid_t clock, struct 
>>> __kernel_timespec *ts)
>>>   {
>>>       const struct vdso_data *vd = __arch_get_vdso_data();
>>> +#endif
>>>       u32 msk;
>>
>> If we do that, then there is no point in propagating this to the inner
>> functions. It's perfectly fine to have this distinction at the outermost
>> level.
> 
> In v2, I did it at the arch level (see 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1214983/). Andy was concerned about 
> it being suboptimal for arches which (unlike powerpc) have PC related 
> data addressing mode.
> 
> Wouldn't it be the same issue if doing it at the outermost level of 
> generic VDSO ?

Any opinion on this ?

 From your point of view, what should I do:
A/ __arch_get_vdso_data() handled entirely at arch level and arches 
handing over the vdso data pointer to generic C VDSO functions all the 
time (as in my v2 series) ?
B/ Data pointer being handed over all the way up for arches wanting to 
do so, no changes at all for others (as in my v3 series) ?
C/ __arch_get_vdso_data() being called at the outermost generic level 
for arches not interested in handling data pointer from the caller (as 
suggested by Thomas) ?

Andy, with A/ you were concerned about arches being able to do PC 
related accesses. Would it be an issue for C/ as well ? If not, I guess 
C/ would be cleaner than B/ allthought not as clean as A which doesn't 
add any #ifdefery at all.

Thanks
Christophe