From: "Shi, Yang" <yang.shi@linaro.org> To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: remove redundant FRAME_POINTER kconfig option Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 09:23:38 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <563CE21A.6060803@linaro.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20151106162538.GU6087@arm.com> On 11/6/2015 8:25 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:21:09PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:50:02PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:30:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: >>>> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:37:51AM -0800, Yang Shi wrote: >>>>> FRAME_POINTER is defined in lib/Kconfig.debug, it is unnecessary to redefine >>>>> it in arch/arm64/Kconfig.debug. >>>> >>>> It might be worth noting that this adds a dependency on DEBUG_KERNEL >>>> for building with frame pointers. I'm ok with that (it appears to be >>>> enabled in defconfig and follows the vast majority of other archs) but >>>> it is a change in behaviour. >>>> >>>> With that: >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> >>> >>> The code in arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c assumes we have frame >>> pointers regardless of FRAME_POINTER. Depending on what the compiler >>> decides to use x29 for, we could get some weird fake unwinding and/or >>> dodgy memory accesses. >>> >>> I think we should first audit the uses of frame pointers to ensure that >>> they are guarded for !FRAME_POINTER. >> >> Or we just select FRAME_POINTER in the ARM64 Kconfig entry. > > Yang, did you see any benefit disabling frame pointers, or was this patch > purely based on you spotting a duplicate Kconfig entry? It just spots a duplicate Kconfig entry. FRAME_POINTER is defined in both lib/Kconfig.debug and arch/arm64/Kconfig.debug. The lib/Kconfig.debug one looks like: config FRAME_POINTER bool "Compile the kernel with frame pointers" depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && \ (CRIS || M68K || FRV || UML || \ AVR32 || SUPERH || BLACKFIN || MN10300 || METAG) || \ ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS default y if (DEBUG_INFO && UML) || ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS help If you say Y here the resulting kernel image will be slightly larger and slower, but it gives very useful debugging information in case of kernel bugs. (precise oopses/stacktraces/warnings) The common one just depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS. ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS is selected by ARM64 kconfig entry. To answer Catalin's question about: > However, the patch would allow one to > disable FRAME_POINTERS (not sure it has any effect on the aarch64 gcc > though). No, it doesn't. Actually, FRAME_POINTER could be disabled regardless of the patch. Thanks, Yang > > Will >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: yang.shi@linaro.org (Shi, Yang) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH] arm64: remove redundant FRAME_POINTER kconfig option Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 09:23:38 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <563CE21A.6060803@linaro.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20151106162538.GU6087@arm.com> On 11/6/2015 8:25 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:21:09PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:50:02PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:30:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: >>>> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:37:51AM -0800, Yang Shi wrote: >>>>> FRAME_POINTER is defined in lib/Kconfig.debug, it is unnecessary to redefine >>>>> it in arch/arm64/Kconfig.debug. >>>> >>>> It might be worth noting that this adds a dependency on DEBUG_KERNEL >>>> for building with frame pointers. I'm ok with that (it appears to be >>>> enabled in defconfig and follows the vast majority of other archs) but >>>> it is a change in behaviour. >>>> >>>> With that: >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> >>> >>> The code in arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c assumes we have frame >>> pointers regardless of FRAME_POINTER. Depending on what the compiler >>> decides to use x29 for, we could get some weird fake unwinding and/or >>> dodgy memory accesses. >>> >>> I think we should first audit the uses of frame pointers to ensure that >>> they are guarded for !FRAME_POINTER. >> >> Or we just select FRAME_POINTER in the ARM64 Kconfig entry. > > Yang, did you see any benefit disabling frame pointers, or was this patch > purely based on you spotting a duplicate Kconfig entry? It just spots a duplicate Kconfig entry. FRAME_POINTER is defined in both lib/Kconfig.debug and arch/arm64/Kconfig.debug. The lib/Kconfig.debug one looks like: config FRAME_POINTER bool "Compile the kernel with frame pointers" depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && \ (CRIS || M68K || FRV || UML || \ AVR32 || SUPERH || BLACKFIN || MN10300 || METAG) || \ ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS default y if (DEBUG_INFO && UML) || ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS help If you say Y here the resulting kernel image will be slightly larger and slower, but it gives very useful debugging information in case of kernel bugs. (precise oopses/stacktraces/warnings) The common one just depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS. ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS is selected by ARM64 kconfig entry. To answer Catalin's question about: > However, the patch would allow one to > disable FRAME_POINTERS (not sure it has any effect on the aarch64 gcc > though). No, it doesn't. Actually, FRAME_POINTER could be disabled regardless of the patch. Thanks, Yang > > Will >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-06 17:23 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-11-04 17:37 [PATCH] arm64: remove redundant FRAME_POINTER kconfig option Yang Shi 2015-11-04 17:37 ` Yang Shi 2015-11-06 12:30 ` Will Deacon 2015-11-06 12:30 ` Will Deacon 2015-11-06 12:50 ` Mark Rutland 2015-11-06 12:50 ` Mark Rutland 2015-11-06 15:42 ` Will Deacon 2015-11-06 15:42 ` Will Deacon 2015-11-06 16:21 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-11-06 16:21 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-11-06 16:25 ` Will Deacon 2015-11-06 16:25 ` Will Deacon 2015-11-06 17:23 ` Shi, Yang [this message] 2015-11-06 17:23 ` Shi, Yang 2015-11-06 17:35 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-11-06 17:35 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-11-06 17:39 ` Shi, Yang 2015-11-06 17:39 ` Shi, Yang 2015-11-06 17:51 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-11-06 17:51 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-11-06 17:55 ` Shi, Yang 2015-11-06 17:55 ` Shi, Yang 2015-11-09 15:58 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-11-09 15:58 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-11-06 16:12 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-11-06 16:12 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-11-06 16:19 ` Will Deacon 2015-11-06 16:19 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=563CE21A.6060803@linaro.org \ --to=yang.shi@linaro.org \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.