From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] powerpc/irq: inline call_do_irq() and call_do_softirq()
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 08:59:58 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191127145958.GG9491@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5fdb1c92-8bf4-01ca-f81c-214870c33be3@c-s.fr>
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 02:50:30PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> So what do we do ? We just drop the "r2" clobber ?
You have to make sure your asm code works for all ABIs. This is quite
involved if you do a call to an external function. The compiler does
*not* see this call, so you will have to make sure that all that the
compiler and linker do will work, or prevent some of those things (say,
inlining of the function containing the call).
> Otherwise, to be on the safe side we can just save r2 in a local var
> before the bl and restore it after. I guess it won't collapse CPU time
> on a performant PPC64.
That does not fix everything. The called function requires a specific
value in r2 on entry.
So all this needs verification. Hopefully you can get away with just
not clobbering r2 (and not adding a nop after the bl), sure. But this
needs to be checked.
Changing control flow inside inline assembler always is problematic.
Another problem in this case (on all ABIs) is that the compiler does
not see you call __do_irq. Again, you can probably get away with that
too, but :-)
Segher
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] powerpc/irq: inline call_do_irq() and call_do_softirq()
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 08:59:58 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191127145958.GG9491@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5fdb1c92-8bf4-01ca-f81c-214870c33be3@c-s.fr>
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 02:50:30PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> So what do we do ? We just drop the "r2" clobber ?
You have to make sure your asm code works for all ABIs. This is quite
involved if you do a call to an external function. The compiler does
*not* see this call, so you will have to make sure that all that the
compiler and linker do will work, or prevent some of those things (say,
inlining of the function containing the call).
> Otherwise, to be on the safe side we can just save r2 in a local var
> before the bl and restore it after. I guess it won't collapse CPU time
> on a performant PPC64.
That does not fix everything. The called function requires a specific
value in r2 on entry.
So all this needs verification. Hopefully you can get away with just
not clobbering r2 (and not adding a nop after the bl), sure. But this
needs to be checked.
Changing control flow inside inline assembler always is problematic.
Another problem in this case (on all ABIs) is that the compiler does
not see you call __do_irq. Again, you can probably get away with that
too, but :-)
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-27 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-10 5:36 [PATCH v4 1/2] powerpc/irq: bring back ksp_limit management in C functions Christophe Leroy
2019-10-10 5:36 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-10-10 5:36 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] powerpc/irq: inline call_do_irq() and call_do_softirq() Christophe Leroy
2019-10-10 5:36 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-11-21 6:14 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-11-21 6:14 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-11-21 10:15 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-11-21 10:15 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-11-25 10:32 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-11-25 10:32 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-11-25 14:25 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-11-25 14:25 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-11-27 13:50 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-11-27 13:50 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-11-27 14:59 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2019-11-27 14:59 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-11-27 15:15 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-11-27 15:15 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-11-29 18:46 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-11-29 18:46 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-04 4:32 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-12-04 4:32 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-12-06 20:59 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-06 20:59 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-07 9:42 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-12-07 9:42 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-12-07 17:40 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-07 17:40 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-09 10:53 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-09 10:53 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-19 6:57 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-12-19 6:57 ` Christophe Leroy
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=20191127145958.GG9491@gate.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/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: link
Be 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.