[PATCH v10 4/6] ARM: add vdso user-space code
Venkappa Mala
venkappa.m at samsung.com
Fri Feb 13 06:56:41 PST 2015
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas <at> arm.com> writes:
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:01:40PM +0000, Venkappa Mala wrote:
> > Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas <at> arm.com> writes:
> > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 04:36:25AM +0000, Venkappa Mala wrote:
> > > > Nathan Lynch <nathan_lynch <at> mentor.com> writes:
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_ARCH_TIMER
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static notrace u64 get_ns(struct vdso_data *vdata)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + u64 cycle_delta;
> > > > > + u64 cycle_now;
> > > > > + u64 nsec;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + cycle_now = arch_counter_get_cntvct();
> > > >
> > > > Regarding ARM:vDSO, I have enabled your patch set on Cortex-
A7/ARMv7,
> > > > the vDSO is up and running using generic arch timer using
physical
> > > > counter but not with VCT.
> > > > I anticipate, the issue could be due to VCT cycles.
> > > [...]
> > > > Perhaps, either we need to revise the vDSO frame work to choose
VCT or
> > > > PCT dynamically Otherwise CNTVOFF reset to be zero but CNTVOFF
could not
> > > > be accessed in SVC mode (PL1).
> > >
> > > I assume on your platform, the DT also contains
> > > "arm,cpu-registers-not-fw-configured". In such case, the VDSO
> > > optimisation for gettimeofday should just be disabled (as it would
be if
> > > the generic timers are not present). Really, just fix the
firmware.
> >
> > Thanks Catalin for your promote reply. Yes, DTS contained
> > arm,cpu-registers-not-fw-configured so that it uses generic physical
> > timer instead of virtual timer. Now, the vDSO gettimeofday
> > optimization is also possible since the generic timer is presented
and
> > enabled. However, vDSO gettimeofday implementation has been using
> > virtual timer (VCT user access) but the current implementation will
> > not be sufficient to handle when the firmware is not taken care
about
> > reset CNTVOFF to zero. Let’s assume,neither firmware taken care nor
> > booted with HYP mode, then Can we use physical timer (PCT user
access
> > needs to be enabled) for vDSO in the safe manner?
>
> The short answer: no.
>
> The problem is that user space is very "innovative" in making use of
> features in a different way than what the kernel people intended and
> it will be claimed "user ABI" afterwards. Take this glibc revert for
> example, luckily we noticed it early:
>
> https://sourceware.org/git/?
p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=33ef2f0c763b51e1df7896d7d39d585824558c75
>
> CNTVCT is not intended to be used outside of the VDSO but, apparently,
> the VDSO->kernel interface is seen as user ABI by some.
>
> CNTPCT cannot always be used in user space (VDSO and not even the
> kernel), especially when the kernel boots at EL1. Choosing CNTPCT vs
> CNTVCT in VDSO dynamically (or at boot time) is technically doable but
> there is a high risk that user space ends up using them directly when
it
> detects a gettimeofday VDSO and such code will break when CNTPCT is no
> longer accessible.
>
Ok Catalin, I have understood about your concern.
From ARMv7 TRM,
An implementation of the Generic Timer always includes a virtual
counter, that indicates virtual time:
[1] In a processor implementation that does not include the
Virtualization Extensions, virtual time is identical to physical time,
and the virtual counter contains the same value as the physical counter.
[2] If In a processor implementation that includes the Virtualization
Extensions, then it is already taken care in the kernel with the
following if boot loader boots with HYP mode,
commit 0af0b189abf73d232af782df2f999235cd2fed7f
ARM: hyp: initialize CNTVOFF to zero
Currently, we have been noticing an issue with [1] with virtual offset
when we enable VCT since it is not an initialize to zero.
Perhaps, the best way to handle this one in firmware itself rather than
bringing too much complexity.
Are you recommending this one?
If that is true, then we are going to force everyone to take care
CNTVOFF initialization in the firmware if they want to utilize vDSO on
ARMv7 where HYP mode is disabled.
BR,
Venkappa
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list