• Christophe Leroy's avatar
    powerpc/32s: Do kuep_lock() and kuep_unlock() in assembly · 526d4a4c
    Christophe Leroy authored
    When interrupt and syscall entries where converted to C, KUEP locking
    and unlocking was also converted. It improved performance by unrolling
    the loop, and allowed easily implementing boot time deactivation of
    KUEP.
    
    However, null_syscall selftest shows that KUEP is still heavy
    (361 cycles with KUEP, 212 cycles without).
    
    A way to improve more is to group 'mtsr's together, instead of
    repeating 'addi' + 'mtsr' several times.
    
    In order to do that, more registers need to be available. In C, GCC
    will always be able to provide the requested number of registers, but
    at the cost of saving some data on the stack, which is counter
    performant here.
    
    So let's do it in assembly, when we have full control of which
    register can be used. It also has the advantage of locking earlier
    and unlocking later and it helps GCC generating less tricky code.
    The only drawback is to make boot time deactivation less straight
    forward and require 'hand' instruction patching.
    
    Group 'mtsr's by 4.
    
    With this change, null_syscall selftest reports 336 cycles. Without
    the change it was 361 cycles, that's a 7% reduction.
    Signed-off-by: default avatarChristophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
    Signed-off-by: default avatarMichael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/115cb279e9b9948dfd93a065e047081c59e3a2a6.1634627931.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu
    526d4a4c
entry_32.S 14.4 KB