Message-ID: <4AA0A05B.5010806@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:06:35 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>, mingo@redhat.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com,
       stable@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu,
       linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86/i386: Make sure stack-protector segment base
 is cache aligned
References: <4AA01893.6000507@goop.org> <tip-1ea0d14e480c245683927eecc03a70faf06e80c8@git.kernel.org> <4AA02687.9080406@zytor.com> <4AA02B02.7080101@goop.org> <4AA031DE.2070109@zytor.com> <4AA080A0.7010804@kernel.org> <4AA08283.5020306@kernel.org> <4AA08B09.50503@zytor.com> <4AA08DD3.5010509@kernel.org> <4AA08ED0.4050206@zytor.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AA08ED0.4050206@zytor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1839
Lines: 42

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/03/2009 08:47 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2009 07:59 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>> Another question.  Other than saving and loading an extra segment
>>>> register on kernel entry/exit, whether using the same or different
>>>> segment registers doesn't look like would make difference
>>>> performance-wise.  If I'm interpreting the wording in the optimization
>>>> manual correctly, it means that each non-zero segment based memory
>>>> access will be costly regardless of which specific segment register is
>>>> in use and there's no way we can merge segment based dereferences for
>>>> stackprotector and percpu variables.
>>>>
>>> It's correct that it doesn't make any difference for access, only for load.
>> Heh... here's a naive and hopeful plan.  How about we beg gcc
>> developers to allow different segment register and offset in newer gcc
>> versions and then use the same one when building with the new gcc?
>> This should solve the i386 problem too.  It would be the best as we
>> get to keep the separate segment register from the userland.  Too
>> hopeful?
> 
> I think it's possible to set the register in more recent gcc.  Doing the
> sane thing and having a symbol for an offset is probably worse.

I was thinking about altering the build process so that we can use sed
to substitute %gs:40 with %fs:40 while compiling.  If it's already
possible to override the register in more recent gcc, no need to go
into that horror.

> I can talk to H.J. Lu about this tomorrow.

Great, please keep us posted.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/