Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 15:47:04 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@intel.com>
Cc:     Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM/VMX: Do not declare vmread_error asmlinkage
Message-ID: <YxoOeGzI9sht/Afy@google.com>
References: <20220817144045.3206-1-ubizjak@gmail.com>
 <Yv0QFZUdePurfjKh@google.com>
 <CAFULd4bVQ73Cur85Oj=oXHiMRvfrxkAVy=V4TfHcbtNWbqOQzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YxDRquTx2piSX66J@google.com>
 <CY5PR11MB636505ECC6D27486065E5CE0DC7E9@CY5PR11MB6365.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CY5PR11MB636505ECC6D27486065E5CE0DC7E9@CY5PR11MB6365.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 06, 2022, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 11:37 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > And vmread_error() isn't the only case where asmlinkage appears to be a
> > burden, e.g.
> > > > schedule_tail_wrapper() => schedule_tail() seems to exist purely to
> > > > deal with the side affect of asmlinkage generating -regparm=0 on 32-bit
> > kernels.
> > >
> > > schedule_tail is external to the x86 arch directory, and for some
> > > reason marked asmlinkage. So, the call from asm must follow asmlinkage
> > > ABI.
> > 
> > Ahhh, it's a common helper that's called from assembly on other architectures.
> > That makes sense.
> 
> I still doubt the necessity. The compilation is architecture specific, and we don't
> build one architecture-agnostic kernel binary to run on different architectures,
> right?

Right, it's not strictly necessary, e.g. wrapping schedule_tail()'s asmlinkage in
"#ifndef CONFIG_X86" would allow for the removal of schedule_tail_wrapper().  But
that's arguably worse than forcing i386 to use a wrapper given that the few extra
instructions are unlikely to add meaningful overhead, and since i386 is a rather
uncommon configuration these days.