[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/EPT: adjustments for redundant function arguments


  • To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 12:44:03 +0000
  • Authentication-results: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=None smtp.pra=andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Autocrypt: addr=andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFLhNn8BEADVhE+Hb8i0GV6mihnnr/uiQQdPF8kUoFzCOPXkf7jQ5sLYeJa0cQi6Penp VtiFYznTairnVsN5J+ujSTIb+OlMSJUWV4opS7WVNnxHbFTPYZVQ3erv7NKc2iVizCRZ2Kxn srM1oPXWRic8BIAdYOKOloF2300SL/bIpeD+x7h3w9B/qez7nOin5NzkxgFoaUeIal12pXSR Q354FKFoy6Vh96gc4VRqte3jw8mPuJQpfws+Pb+swvSf/i1q1+1I4jsRQQh2m6OTADHIqg2E ofTYAEh7R5HfPx0EXoEDMdRjOeKn8+vvkAwhviWXTHlG3R1QkbE5M/oywnZ83udJmi+lxjJ5 YhQ5IzomvJ16H0Bq+TLyVLO/VRksp1VR9HxCzItLNCS8PdpYYz5TC204ViycobYU65WMpzWe LFAGn8jSS25XIpqv0Y9k87dLbctKKA14Ifw2kq5OIVu2FuX+3i446JOa2vpCI9GcjCzi3oHV e00bzYiHMIl0FICrNJU0Kjho8pdo0m2uxkn6SYEpogAy9pnatUlO+erL4LqFUO7GXSdBRbw5 gNt25XTLdSFuZtMxkY3tq8MFss5QnjhehCVPEpE6y9ZjI4XB8ad1G4oBHVGK5LMsvg22PfMJ ISWFSHoF/B5+lHkCKWkFxZ0gZn33ju5n6/FOdEx4B8cMJt+cWwARAQABtClBbmRyZXcgQ29v cGVyIDxhbmRyZXcuY29vcGVyM0BjaXRyaXguY29tPokCOgQTAQgAJAIbAwULCQgHAwUVCgkI CwUWAgMBAAIeAQIXgAUCWKD95wIZAQAKCRBlw/kGpdefoHbdD/9AIoR3k6fKl+RFiFpyAhvO 59ttDFI7nIAnlYngev2XUR3acFElJATHSDO0ju+hqWqAb8kVijXLops0gOfqt3VPZq9cuHlh IMDquatGLzAadfFx2eQYIYT+FYuMoPZy/aTUazmJIDVxP7L383grjIkn+7tAv+qeDfE+txL4 SAm1UHNvmdfgL2/lcmL3xRh7sub3nJilM93RWX1Pe5LBSDXO45uzCGEdst6uSlzYR/MEr+5Z JQQ32JV64zwvf/aKaagSQSQMYNX9JFgfZ3TKWC1KJQbX5ssoX/5hNLqxMcZV3TN7kU8I3kjK mPec9+1nECOjjJSO/h4P0sBZyIUGfguwzhEeGf4sMCuSEM4xjCnwiBwftR17sr0spYcOpqET ZGcAmyYcNjy6CYadNCnfR40vhhWuCfNCBzWnUW0lFoo12wb0YnzoOLjvfD6OL3JjIUJNOmJy RCsJ5IA/Iz33RhSVRmROu+TztwuThClw63g7+hoyewv7BemKyuU6FTVhjjW+XUWmS/FzknSi dAG+insr0746cTPpSkGl3KAXeWDGJzve7/SBBfyznWCMGaf8E2P1oOdIZRxHgWj0zNr1+ooF /PzgLPiCI4OMUttTlEKChgbUTQ+5o0P080JojqfXwbPAyumbaYcQNiH1/xYbJdOFSiBv9rpt TQTBLzDKXok86LkCDQRS4TZ/ARAAkgqudHsp+hd82UVkvgnlqZjzz2vyrYfz7bkPtXaGb9H4 Rfo7mQsEQavEBdWWjbga6eMnDqtu+FC+qeTGYebToxEyp2lKDSoAsvt8w82tIlP/EbmRbDVn 7bhjBlfRcFjVYw8uVDPptT0TV47vpoCVkTwcyb6OltJrvg/QzV9f07DJswuda1JH3/qvYu0p vjPnYvCq4NsqY2XSdAJ02HrdYPFtNyPEntu1n1KK+gJrstjtw7KsZ4ygXYrsm/oCBiVW/OgU g/XIlGErkrxe4vQvJyVwg6YH653YTX5hLLUEL1NS4TCo47RP+wi6y+TnuAL36UtK/uFyEuPy wwrDVcC4cIFhYSfsO0BumEI65yu7a8aHbGfq2lW251UcoU48Z27ZUUZd2Dr6O/n8poQHbaTd 6bJJSjzGGHZVbRP9UQ3lkmkmc0+XCHmj5WhwNNYjgbbmML7y0fsJT5RgvefAIFfHBg7fTY/i kBEimoUsTEQz+N4hbKwo1hULfVxDJStE4sbPhjbsPCrlXf6W9CxSyQ0qmZ2bXsLQYRj2xqd1 bpA+1o1j2N4/au1R/uSiUFjewJdT/LX1EklKDcQwpk06Af/N7VZtSfEJeRV04unbsKVXWZAk uAJyDDKN99ziC0Wz5kcPyVD1HNf8bgaqGDzrv3TfYjwqayRFcMf7xJaL9xXedMcAEQEAAYkC HwQYAQgACQUCUuE2fwIbDAAKCRBlw/kGpdefoG4XEACD1Qf/er8EA7g23HMxYWd3FXHThrVQ HgiGdk5Yh632vjOm9L4sd/GCEACVQKjsu98e8o3ysitFlznEns5EAAXEbITrgKWXDDUWGYxd pnjj2u+GkVdsOAGk0kxczX6s+VRBhpbBI2PWnOsRJgU2n10PZ3mZD4Xu9kU2IXYmuW+e5KCA vTArRUdCrAtIa1k01sPipPPw6dfxx2e5asy21YOytzxuWFfJTGnVxZZSCyLUO83sh6OZhJkk b9rxL9wPmpN/t2IPaEKoAc0FTQZS36wAMOXkBh24PQ9gaLJvfPKpNzGD8XWR5HHF0NLIJhgg 4ZlEXQ2fVp3XrtocHqhu4UZR4koCijgB8sB7Tb0GCpwK+C4UePdFLfhKyRdSXuvY3AHJd4CP 4JzW0Bzq/WXY3XMOzUTYApGQpnUpdOmuQSfpV9MQO+/jo7r6yPbxT7CwRS5dcQPzUiuHLK9i nvjREdh84qycnx0/6dDroYhp0DFv4udxuAvt1h4wGwTPRQZerSm4xaYegEFusyhbZrI0U9tJ B8WrhBLXDiYlyJT6zOV2yZFuW47VrLsjYnHwn27hmxTC/7tvG3euCklmkn9Sl9IAKFu29RSo d5bD8kMSCYsTqtTfT6W4A3qHGvIDta3ptLYpIAOD2sY3GYq2nf3Bbzx81wZK14JdDDHUX2Rs 6+ahAA==
  • Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 12:44:33 +0000
  • Ironport-sdr: sfLyvUt/x+a8BTQur/m9QX9enPJy7+E7stD0YsUDcV/leADtr1myQAjXyafR1djM+0+wqMhnbf BfKpRxjMC3Ar6SSMKSomQ1JF3GJ8YhIGaC1hKHXtL1hL1RsoM9v7Wps6xbgnXkY6sw0Yx9FgTD D8LBsf70k2UMjlYdWxT9pbPguNi8GJvtMFyNp17VidQklK1P771rpM00C9JQqbcUApzGSKhig2 QOPELrb50pGtwPnD5v1BSjrKv64avX9Bdh8Fk1cNKIlGKdLrT7LvtOU53YFxqc5hkjJwuw0ViE cxU=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Openpgp: preference=signencrypt

On 19/01/2020 02:09, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 11:02 PM
>>
>> On 20.12.2019 15:58, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 12/20/19 2:41 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 20.12.2019 15:26, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>> On 12/20/19 2:21 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> In ept_p2m_type_to_flags() passing in type and access as separate
>>>>>> parameters can be considered an optimization, as all callers set the
>>>>>> respective fields in the entry being updated before the call. Retain
>>>>>> this behavior but add assertions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>> In what way is it an optimization?
>>>> There's no pointer de-ref needed; the values will already come in
>>>> via registers. And "can be considered" because possibly some
>>>> compilers are smart enough to eliminate the pointer de-ref again
>>>> (but then it'll still be a bitfield extract, which callers may
>>>> be able to avoid).
>>> Right; on the whole I'd rather let compilers do this sort of
>>> micro-optimization, and only do this "manual" sort of optimization with
>>> some sort of benchmarks showing that is has some kind of effect.
>>>
>>>>> I don't necessarily oppose this, but given that 3 of the 4 callers
>>>>> literally do something like:
>>>>>
>>>>>     ept_p2m_type_to_flags(p2m, &e, e.sa_p2mt, e.access);
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems like just getting rid of the extraneous arguments might a be
>>>>> better option.
>>>> That was my original intention as well, but iirc Andrew didn't like
>>>> it when we discussed it back then (the context here being XSA-304).
>>> I did a quick skim through those threads and couldn't find any comment
>>> on this issue.  Could you point me to the mail with it?  (Or Andy, would
>>> you care to repeat your argument?)
>> I guess it may have been an irc discussion, quite possibly even
>> a private one between him and me.
>>
>>> Ultimately the patch as it stands is only making the existing code
>>> safer, so I'm OK with giving it my Ack if you don't want to pursue the
>>> other option; but I'd prefer trying to understand and potentially
>>> improve things while we're at it.  (And if there *is* a good reason for
>>> passing in parallel parameters, it would be good to record it in a
>>> comment so we don't have this conversation again in 3 years' time.)
>> I'd be happy to go the other route - as said, that's what I had
>> initially.
>>
> Can Andrew chime in for his concern on this approach?

The first version of the XSA-304 patches plumbed a new level parameter
down.  This is because I saw the function in this form, and thought
"right - &e won't always be related to the type/access parameters as
they are passed separately".  i.e. entry->sp couldn't be relied upon.

As far as I'm concerned, it is an obfuscation not an optimisation, and
the code would be much better with the two parameters deleted.

Of course, the reason why the function is as it is is that, despite
being static, &e is unconditionally a memory operand, making the reads
and writes on it require a semantic order WRT other function calls,
making the function very hard to optimise overall.  A better approach
would be to pass e directly, and return the new perm bits in place, and
have the caller "&= MASK; |= new_perms;" which will be far easier for
the compiler to optimise.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.