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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220923170218.1188423-1-ndesaulniers@google.com>
 <CAHk-=wiAwEA5KekL4+t+v6qAdKLSOQvBkGbumvk+Rxhaay8aFg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKwvOd=r+9X6JkikpuTvjdTn7DXusevoJBFjXtGQ1SZYCZ6f6g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOd=r+9X6JkikpuTvjdTn7DXusevoJBFjXtGQ1SZYCZ6f6g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2022 11:05:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whknQuJCqbzjtBrkjGOPrZPX6fjv8HSms2p0kw-NTdMZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, mem: move memmove to out of line assembler
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 10:55 AM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
>
> We could remove __HAVE_ARCH_MEMMOVE from
> arch/x86/include/asm/string_32.h for ARCH=i386 then rip this
> arch-specific definition of memmove out.
>
> Might performance regressions be a concern with that approach?

memmove() isn't particularly common, but it does happen for some paths
that can be hot - the usual case of moving parts of an array around. I
see filesystems and networking paths doing that.

The generic memmove() is a horrendous byte-at-a-time thing and only
good for bring-up of new architectures. That's not an option.

But I'm looking at that x86-64 memcpy_orig, and I think it looks
fairly good as a template for doing the same on x86-32. And we could
get rid of the duplication on the x86-64 side.

That said, your patch looks fine too, as a "minimal changes" thing.

                Linus