On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:52:30AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/vdso/vsyscall.c b/kernel/vdso/vsyscall.c
> new file mode 100644
> index ..d1e8074e3d10
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/kernel/vdso/vsyscall.c
> +static inline void update_vdso_data(struct vdso_data *vdata,
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:05:40PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> On 31/05/2019 09:16, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 4:15 PM Vincenzo Frascino
> > wrote:
> >
> >> + * vdso_data will be accessed by 64 bit and compat code at the same time
> >> + * so we should be careful
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 12:07:45PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> On 10/06/2019 11:31, Huw Davies wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:17:48AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> >> On 10/06/2019 10:27, Huw Davies wrote:
> >>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 03:15:13PM
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:17:48AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> On 10/06/2019 10:27, Huw Davies wrote:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 03:15:13PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/include/vdso/datapage.h
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
>
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 03:15:13PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/vdso/datapage.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> +#ifndef __VDSO_DATAPAGE_H
> +#define __VDSO_DATAPAGE_H
> +
> +#ifdef __KERNEL__
> +
> +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> +
>
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 03:15:15PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> With the definition of the unified vDSO library the implementations of
> update_vsyscall and update_vsyscall_tz became quite similar across
> architectures.
>
> Define a unified implementation of this two functions in
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 03:15:14PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> In the last few years we assisted to an explosion of vdso
> implementations that mostly share similar code.
This doesn't make much sense. Perhaps: "In the last few years we
have seen an explosion in vdso..." ?
Huw.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:15:56AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> On 15/04/2019 10:51, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, Huw Davies wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:53:32PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>> See
> >>
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:53:32PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> So it stays in the same cache line, but as we move the VDSO to generic
> code, the mask field needs to stay and this will make
> basetime[CLOCK_MONOTONIC]
> overlap into the next cache line.
Thanks for the great review; this is
This is particularly useful for Wine which needs to implement Win32
API clock functions whose values do not get adjusted by adjtimex().
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Andy Lutomirski
Signed-off-by: Huw Davies
---
arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_gtod.c | 6 ++
arch/x86/include/asm/vgtod.h
The 'mask' member of struct vsyscall_gtod_data is unused, so remove
it. Its use was removed in commit a51e996d48ac (x86/vdso: Enforce
64bit clocksource).
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Andy Lutomirski
Signed-off-by: Huw Davies
---
arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_gtod.c | 1 -
arch/x86/include/asm
in struct vsyscall_gtod_data, but it seems more
natural to group them with the actual clock data in the basetime array
at the expense of a few more cycles in update_vsyscall().
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Andy Lutomirski
Signed-off-by: Huw Davies
---
arch/x86/entry/vdso/vclock_gettime.c| 4 ++--
arch
This series adds support for the CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW clock in the x86
vDSO, thus decreasing its readout cost. This is particularly useful
for Wine which needs to implement Win32 API clock functions whose
value does not get adjusted with adjtimex().
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Andy Lutomirski
Huw
13 matches
Mail list logo
