On 04/09/24 08:41, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm done a 'perf record' on vdso_test_random reduced to vdso test only, and I
> get the following function usage profile.
>
> Do you see the same type of percentage on your platforms ?
>
> I would have expected most of the time to be spent
On 03/10/23 19:12, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 10/3/23 9:08 AM, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote:
>> What it is not clear to me is what kind of ABI boundary you are trying to
>> preemptively add support here. The TCB ABI for __builtin_cpu_supports is
>> userland only, so if y
On 02/10/23 18:19, Peter Bergner wrote:
> Hi Adhemerval, sorry for the delay in replying, I was a little under the
> weather last week.
>
>
> On 9/27/23 11:03 AM, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote:
>> On 26/09/23 19:02, Peter Bergner wrote:
>>> The powerpc toolchain
On 26/09/23 19:02, Peter Bergner wrote:
> The powerpc toolchain keeps a copy of the HWCAP bit masks in our TCB for fast
> access by our __builtin_cpu_supports built-in function. The TCB space for
> the HWCAP entries - which are created in pairs - is an ABI extension, so
> waiting to create the
On 28/04/2020 23:39, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Excerpts from Adhemerval Zanella's message of April 27, 2020 11:09 pm:
>>
>>
>> On 26/04/2020 00:41, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Rich Felker's message of April 26, 2020 9:11 am:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 08:58:19AM +1000, Nicholas Pig
On 26/04/2020 00:41, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Excerpts from Rich Felker's message of April 26, 2020 9:11 am:
>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 08:58:19AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of April 25, 2020 10:20 pm:
Le 25/04/2020 à 12:56, Nicholas
On 23/04/2020 13:43, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 01:35:01PM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 23/04/2020 13:18, Rich Felker wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 09:13:57AM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
On 23/04/2020 13:18, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 09:13:57AM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22/04/2020 23:36, Rich Felker wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 04:18:36PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>>>> Yeah I had a bit
On 22/04/2020 23:36, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 04:18:36PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> Yeah I had a bit of a play around with musl (which is very nice code I
>> must say). The powerpc64 syscall asm is missing ctr clobber by the way.
>> Fortunately adding it doesn't chang
On 21/04/2020 11:39, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:28:25PM +, David Laight wrote:
>> From: Nicholas Piggin
>>> Sent: 20 April 2020 02:10
>> ...
> Yes, but does it really matter to optimize this specific usage case
> for size? glibc, for instance, tries to leverage t
On 16/04/2020 15:31, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 03:18:42PM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16/04/2020 14:59, Rich Felker wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 02:50:18PM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
On 16/04/2020 14:59, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 02:50:18PM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16/04/2020 12:37, Rich Felker wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:16:04AM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>>> My prefer
On 16/04/2020 12:37, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:16:04AM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>> My preference would be that it work just like the i386 AT_SYSINFO
>>> where you just replace "int $128" with "call *%%gs:16" and the ke
On 15/04/2020 19:55, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 07:45:09AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> I would like to enable Linux support for the powerpc 'scv' instruction,
>> as a faster system call instruction.
>>
>> This requires two things to be defined: Firstly a way to advertise t
On 30/01/2020 18:41, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 02:04:51PM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> On 30/01/2020 10:50, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 01:03:53PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>>> This
On 30/01/2020 10:50, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 01:03:53PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> This is why that *is* the only supported use. The documentation could
>>> use a touch-up, I think. Unless we still have problems here?
>>
>> I really don't know.
On 28/01/2020 11:05, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Florian Weimer's on January 28, 2020 11:09 pm:
>> * Nicholas Piggin:
>>
>>> * Proposal is for PPC_FEATURE2_SCV to indicate 'scv 0' support, all other
>>> vectors will return -ENOSYS, and the decision for how to add support for
>>> a new vector de
On 17/04/2019 19:04, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 4/15/19 10:22 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>
>>> New interfaces are only necessary for the handful of architectures that
>>> don't have the speed fields *and* to space to put them in.
>>
>> Based
On 16/04/2019 06:59, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * hpa:
>
>> Using symbol versioning doesn't really help much since the real
>> problem is that struct termios can be passed around in userspace, and
>> the interfaces between user space libraries don't have any
>> versioning. However, my POC code dea
On 15/04/2019 12:53, h...@zytor.com wrote:
> On April 12, 2019 12:50:41 AM PDT, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Adhemerval Zanella:
>>
>>> On 11/04/2019 08:07, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>> * Adhemerval Zanella:
>>>>
>>>>> This allows us t
On 11/04/2019 08:07, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Adhemerval Zanella:
>
>> This allows us to adjust the baud rates to non-standard values using termios
>> interfaces without to resorting to add new headers and use a different API
>> (ioctl).
>
> How much symbol v
On 09/04/2019 07:47, Florian Weimer wrote:
> struct termios2 is required for setting arbitrary baud rates on serial
> ports. and have conflicting
> definitions in the existing termios definitions, which means that it
> is currently very difficult to use TCGETS2/TCSETS2 and struct termios2
> w
On 19/10/2017 11:34, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
> Forwarding some comments from Adhemerval sent to libc-alpha [1]...
>
> Adhemerval Zanella writes:
>> Florian Weimer writes:
>>
>>> On 10/12/2017 12:17 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>>> +
On 16/06/2016 12:36, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> Adhemerval Zanella is cleaning up the preadv/pwritev implementation in glibc
> and came across an issue with the tilepro/tilegx32 implementation of argument
> passing for 64-bit arguments in split register pairs.
>
> The glibc
On 08-01-2015 23:56, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> I noticed ksm spending quite a lot of time in memcmp on a large
> KVM box. The current memcmp loop is very unoptimised - byte at a
> time compares with no loop unrolling. We can do much much better.
>
> Optimise the loop in a few ways:
>
> - Unroll the
On 04-07-2013 23:54, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 03:58:01PM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> I believe you forgot to add the cpu_user_features2 bit to announce the EBB
>> support
>> for P8, patch following:
> Hi Adh
Hi Michael,
I believe you forgot to add the cpu_user_features2 bit to announce the EBB
support
for P8, patch following:
Signed-off-by: Adhemerval Zanella
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel
above change and with Michael's comments covered (decent
> changelog entry and Signed-off-by):
>
> Acked-by: Anton Blanchard
Thanks for the review, below the updated patch:
From: Adhemerval Zanella
This patch implement the time syscall as vDSO. The performance speedups
are:
Ba
On 04/05/2013 03:21 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 04:55:31PM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This patch implement the time syscall as vDSO. I have a glibc patch
>> to use it as IFUNC (as latest gettimeofday patch). Below the perf
On 04/05/2013 03:21 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 04:55:31PM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This patch implement the time syscall as vDSO. I have a glibc patch
>> to use it as IFUNC (as latest gettimeofday patch). Below the perf
Hi Benjamin,
Any objection or request about this patch?
On 20-03-2013 02:00, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 16:55 -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> I focused on 64 bit kernel, do I need to provide a scheme for 32 bits
>> as well?
> You did provide
Hi all,
Just sending a ping about this patch.
On 21-03-2013 10:40, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> On 20-03-2013 02:00, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 16:55 -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>> I focused on 64 bit kernel, do I need to provide a scheme for 3
On 20-03-2013 02:00, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 16:55 -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> I focused on 64 bit kernel, do I need to provide a scheme for 32 bits
>> as well?
> You did provide both 32 and 64-bit VDSO implementations so 32-bit
> kern
Hi all,
This patch implement the time syscall as vDSO. I have a glibc patch
to use it as IFUNC (as latest gettimeofday patch). Below the perf
numbers:
Baseline PPC32: 380 nsec
Baseline PPC64: 352 nsec
vdso PPC32: 20 nsec
vdso PPC64: 20 nsec
I focused on 64 bit kernel, do I need to prov
Hello all,
Fallowing a Benjamin Herrenschmidt request, I sending you a fix for IRQ
assign for some PCIe devices. This bug affects multiple PCIe devices
including Cadet-E, Squib-E, CISCO 4X SDR IB, and Knox adapters.
The problem lays in the fact OF does not create an "interrupt" property
for
35 matches
Mail list logo
