All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
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 16:15:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2072e066-1ffb-867e-60ec-04a6bb9075c1@c-s.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191127145958.GG9491@gate.crashing.org>



Le 27/11/2019 à 15:59, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> 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).

But the whole purpose of the patch is to inline the call to __do_irq() 
in order to avoid the trampoline function.

> 
>> 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.

Euh ... but there is nothing like that when using existing 
call_do_irq(). How does GCC know that call_do_irq() has same TOC as 
__do_irq() ?

> 
> 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 :-)

Anyway it sees I reference it, as it is in input arguments. Isn't it 
enough ?

Christophe

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
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 16:15:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2072e066-1ffb-867e-60ec-04a6bb9075c1@c-s.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191127145958.GG9491@gate.crashing.org>



Le 27/11/2019 à 15:59, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> 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).

But the whole purpose of the patch is to inline the call to __do_irq() 
in order to avoid the trampoline function.

> 
>> 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.

Euh ... but there is nothing like that when using existing 
call_do_irq(). How does GCC know that call_do_irq() has same TOC as 
__do_irq() ?

> 
> 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 :-)

Anyway it sees I reference it, as it is in input arguments. Isn't it 
enough ?

Christophe

  reply	other threads:[~2019-11-27 15:15 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
2019-11-27 14:59               ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-11-27 15:15               ` Christophe Leroy [this message]
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=2072e066-1ffb-867e-60ec-04a6bb9075c1@c-s.fr \
    --to=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=segher@kernel.crashing.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.