All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@gmail.com>
To: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
	barami97@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: Expand the stack trace feature to support IRQ stack
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 21:24:06 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <EB44D363-ACBA-48DB-B4EA-EDE1B87B99C8@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <561E009B.3070001@linaro.org>

On Oct 14, 2015, at 4:13 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 11:24 PM, James Morse wrote:
>> Hi Jungseok,
>> 
>> On 07/10/15 16:28, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>>> Currently, a call trace drops a process stack walk when a separate IRQ
>>> stack is used. It makes a call trace information much less useful when
>>> a system gets paniked in interrupt context.
>> 
>> panicked
>> 
>>> This patch addresses the issue with the following schemes:
>>> 
>>>   - Store aborted stack frame data
>>>   - Decide whether another stack walk is needed or not via current sp
>>>   - Loosen the frame pointer upper bound condition
>> 
>> It may be worth merging this patch with its predecessor - anyone trying to
>> bisect a problem could land between these two patches, and spend time
>> debugging the truncated call traces.
>> 
>> 
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
>>> index 6ea82e8..e5904a1 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
>>> @@ -2,13 +2,25 @@
>>>  #define __ASM_IRQ_H
>>> 
>>>  #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>> +#include <asm/stacktrace.h>
>>> 
>>>  #include <asm-generic/irq.h>
>>> 
>>>  struct irq_stack {
>>>  	void *stack;
>>> +	struct stackframe frame;
>>>  };
>>> 
>>> +DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct irq_stack, irq_stacks);
>> 
>> Good idea, storing this in the per-cpu data makes it immune to stack
>> corruption.
> 
> Is this the only reason that you have a dummy stack frame in per-cpu data?
> By placing this frame in an interrupt stack, I think, we will be able to eliminate
> changes in dump_stace(). and
> 
>> 
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>>> index 407991b..5124649 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>>> @@ -43,7 +43,27 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame)
>>>  	low  = frame->sp;
>>>  	high = ALIGN(low, THREAD_SIZE);
>>> 
>>> -	if (fp < low || fp > high - 0x18 || fp & 0xf)
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * A frame pointer would reach an upper bound if a prologue of the
>>> +	 * first function of call trace looks as follows:
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 *	stp     x29, x30, [sp,#-16]!
>>> +	 *	mov     x29, sp
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * Thus, the upper bound is (top of stack - 0x20) with consideration
>> 
>> The terms 'top' and 'bottom' of the stack are confusing, your 'top' appears
>> to be the highest address, which is used first, making it the bottom of the
>> stack.
>> 
>> I would try to use the terms low/est and high/est, in keeping with the
>> variable names in use here.
>> 
>> 
>>> +	 * of a 16-byte empty space in THREAD_START_SP.
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * The value, 0x20, however, does not cover all cases as interrupts
>>> +	 * are handled using a separate stack. That is, a call trace can start
>>> +	 * from elx_irq exception vectors. The symbols could not be promoted
>>> +	 * to candidates for a stack trace under the restriction, 0x20.
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * The scenario is handled without complexity as 1) considering
>>> +	 * (bottom of stack + THREAD_START_SP) as a dummy frame pointer, the
>>> +	 * content of which is 0, and 2) allowing the case, which changes
>>> +	 * the value to 0x10 from 0x20.
>> 
>> Where has 0x20 come from? The old value was 0x18.
>> 
>> My understanding is the highest part of the stack looks like this:
>> high        [ off-stack ]
>> high - 0x08 [ left free by THREAD_START_SP ]
>> high - 0x10 [ left free by THREAD_START_SP ]
>> high - 0x18 [#1 x30 ]
>> high - 0x20 [#1 x29 ]
>> 
>> So the condition 'fp > high - 0x18' prevents returning either 'left free'
>> address, or off-stack-value as a frame. Changing it to 'fp > high - 0x10'
>> allows the first half of that reserved area to be a valid stack frame.
>> 
>> This change is breaking perf using incantations [0] and [1]:
>> 
>> Before, with just patch 1/2:
>>                   ---__do_softirq
>>                      |
>>                      |--92.95%-- __handle_domain_irq
>>                      |          __irqentry_text_start
>>                      |          el1_irq
>>                      |
>> 
>> After, with both patches:
>>                  ---__do_softirq
>>                     |
>>                     |--83.83%-- __handle_domain_irq
>>                     |          __irqentry_text_start
>>                     |          el1_irq
>>                     |          |
>>                     |          |--99.39%-- 0x400008040d00000c
>>                     |           --0.61%-- [...]
>>                     |
> 
> This also shows that walk_stackframe() doesn't walk through a process stack.
> Now I'm trying the following hack on top of Jungseok's patch.
> (It doesn't traverse from an irq stack to an process stack yet. I need modify
> unwind_frame().)

I've got a difference between perf and dump_backtrace() as reviewing perf call
chain operation. Perf relies on walk_stackframe(), but dump_backtrace() does not.
That is, a symbol is printed out *before* unwind_frame() call in case of perf.
By contrast, dump_backtrace() records a symbol *after* unwind_frame(). I think
perf behavior is correct since frame.pc is retrieved from a valid stack frame.

So, the following diff is a prerequisite. It looks reasonable to remove dump_mem()
call since frame.sp is calculated incorrectly now. If accepted, dump_backtrace()
could utilize walk_stackframe(), which simplifies the code.

----8<----
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
index f93aae5..e18be43 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
@@ -103,12 +103,15 @@ static void dump_mem(const char *lvl, const char *str, unsigned long bottom,
        set_fs(fs);
 }
 
-static void dump_backtrace_entry(unsigned long where, unsigned long stack)
+static void dump_backtrace_entry(unsigned long where)
 {
+       /*
+        * PC has a physical address when MMU is disabled.
+        */
+       if (!kernel_text_address(where))
+               where = (unsigned long)phys_to_virt(where);
+
        print_ip_sym(where);
-       if (in_exception_text(where))
-               dump_mem("", "Exception stack", stack,
-                        stack + sizeof(struct pt_regs), false);
 }
 
 static void dump_instr(const char *lvl, struct pt_regs *regs)
@@ -172,12 +175,17 @@ static void dump_backtrace(struct pt_regs *regs, struct task_struct *tsk)
        pr_emerg("Call trace:\n");
        while (1) {
                unsigned long where = frame.pc;
+               unsigned long stack;
                int ret;
 
+               dump_backtrace_entry(where);
                ret = unwind_frame(&frame);
                if (ret < 0)
                        break;
-               dump_backtrace_entry(where, frame.sp);
+               stack = frame.sp;
+               if (in_exception_text(where))
+                       dump_mem("", "Exception stack", stack,
+                                stack + sizeof(struct pt_regs), false);
        }
 }
----8<----

> Thanks,
> -Takahiro AKASHI
> ----8<----
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> index 650cc05..5fbd1ea 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> @@ -185,14 +185,12 @@ alternative_endif
> 	mov	x23, sp
> 	and	x23, x23, #~(THREAD_SIZE - 1)
> 	cmp	x20, x23			// check irq re-enterance
> +	mov	x19, sp
> 	beq	1f
> -	str	x29, [x19, #IRQ_FRAME_FP]
> -	str	x21, [x19, #IRQ_FRAME_SP]
> -	str	x22, [x19, #IRQ_FRAME_PC]
> -	mov	x29, x24
> -1:	mov	x19, sp
> -	csel	x23, x19, x24, eq		// x24 = top of irq stack
> -	mov	sp, x23
> +	mov	sp, x24				// x24 = top of irq stack
> +	stp	x29, x22, [sp, #-32]!
> +	mov	x29, sp
> +1:
> 	.endm
> 
> 	/*

Is it possible to decide which stack is used without aborted SP information?
In addition, I'm curious about an origin of #-32.

Thanks!

Best Regards
Jungseok Lee

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: jungseoklee85@gmail.com (Jungseok Lee)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: Expand the stack trace feature to support IRQ stack
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 21:24:06 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <EB44D363-ACBA-48DB-B4EA-EDE1B87B99C8@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <561E009B.3070001@linaro.org>

On Oct 14, 2015, at 4:13 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 11:24 PM, James Morse wrote:
>> Hi Jungseok,
>> 
>> On 07/10/15 16:28, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>>> Currently, a call trace drops a process stack walk when a separate IRQ
>>> stack is used. It makes a call trace information much less useful when
>>> a system gets paniked in interrupt context.
>> 
>> panicked
>> 
>>> This patch addresses the issue with the following schemes:
>>> 
>>>   - Store aborted stack frame data
>>>   - Decide whether another stack walk is needed or not via current sp
>>>   - Loosen the frame pointer upper bound condition
>> 
>> It may be worth merging this patch with its predecessor - anyone trying to
>> bisect a problem could land between these two patches, and spend time
>> debugging the truncated call traces.
>> 
>> 
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
>>> index 6ea82e8..e5904a1 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
>>> @@ -2,13 +2,25 @@
>>>  #define __ASM_IRQ_H
>>> 
>>>  #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>> +#include <asm/stacktrace.h>
>>> 
>>>  #include <asm-generic/irq.h>
>>> 
>>>  struct irq_stack {
>>>  	void *stack;
>>> +	struct stackframe frame;
>>>  };
>>> 
>>> +DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct irq_stack, irq_stacks);
>> 
>> Good idea, storing this in the per-cpu data makes it immune to stack
>> corruption.
> 
> Is this the only reason that you have a dummy stack frame in per-cpu data?
> By placing this frame in an interrupt stack, I think, we will be able to eliminate
> changes in dump_stace(). and
> 
>> 
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>>> index 407991b..5124649 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>>> @@ -43,7 +43,27 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame)
>>>  	low  = frame->sp;
>>>  	high = ALIGN(low, THREAD_SIZE);
>>> 
>>> -	if (fp < low || fp > high - 0x18 || fp & 0xf)
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * A frame pointer would reach an upper bound if a prologue of the
>>> +	 * first function of call trace looks as follows:
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 *	stp     x29, x30, [sp,#-16]!
>>> +	 *	mov     x29, sp
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * Thus, the upper bound is (top of stack - 0x20) with consideration
>> 
>> The terms 'top' and 'bottom' of the stack are confusing, your 'top' appears
>> to be the highest address, which is used first, making it the bottom of the
>> stack.
>> 
>> I would try to use the terms low/est and high/est, in keeping with the
>> variable names in use here.
>> 
>> 
>>> +	 * of a 16-byte empty space in THREAD_START_SP.
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * The value, 0x20, however, does not cover all cases as interrupts
>>> +	 * are handled using a separate stack. That is, a call trace can start
>>> +	 * from elx_irq exception vectors. The symbols could not be promoted
>>> +	 * to candidates for a stack trace under the restriction, 0x20.
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * The scenario is handled without complexity as 1) considering
>>> +	 * (bottom of stack + THREAD_START_SP) as a dummy frame pointer, the
>>> +	 * content of which is 0, and 2) allowing the case, which changes
>>> +	 * the value to 0x10 from 0x20.
>> 
>> Where has 0x20 come from? The old value was 0x18.
>> 
>> My understanding is the highest part of the stack looks like this:
>> high        [ off-stack ]
>> high - 0x08 [ left free by THREAD_START_SP ]
>> high - 0x10 [ left free by THREAD_START_SP ]
>> high - 0x18 [#1 x30 ]
>> high - 0x20 [#1 x29 ]
>> 
>> So the condition 'fp > high - 0x18' prevents returning either 'left free'
>> address, or off-stack-value as a frame. Changing it to 'fp > high - 0x10'
>> allows the first half of that reserved area to be a valid stack frame.
>> 
>> This change is breaking perf using incantations [0] and [1]:
>> 
>> Before, with just patch 1/2:
>>                   ---__do_softirq
>>                      |
>>                      |--92.95%-- __handle_domain_irq
>>                      |          __irqentry_text_start
>>                      |          el1_irq
>>                      |
>> 
>> After, with both patches:
>>                  ---__do_softirq
>>                     |
>>                     |--83.83%-- __handle_domain_irq
>>                     |          __irqentry_text_start
>>                     |          el1_irq
>>                     |          |
>>                     |          |--99.39%-- 0x400008040d00000c
>>                     |           --0.61%-- [...]
>>                     |
> 
> This also shows that walk_stackframe() doesn't walk through a process stack.
> Now I'm trying the following hack on top of Jungseok's patch.
> (It doesn't traverse from an irq stack to an process stack yet. I need modify
> unwind_frame().)

I've got a difference between perf and dump_backtrace() as reviewing perf call
chain operation. Perf relies on walk_stackframe(), but dump_backtrace() does not.
That is, a symbol is printed out *before* unwind_frame() call in case of perf.
By contrast, dump_backtrace() records a symbol *after* unwind_frame(). I think
perf behavior is correct since frame.pc is retrieved from a valid stack frame.

So, the following diff is a prerequisite. It looks reasonable to remove dump_mem()
call since frame.sp is calculated incorrectly now. If accepted, dump_backtrace()
could utilize walk_stackframe(), which simplifies the code.

----8<----
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
index f93aae5..e18be43 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
@@ -103,12 +103,15 @@ static void dump_mem(const char *lvl, const char *str, unsigned long bottom,
        set_fs(fs);
 }
 
-static void dump_backtrace_entry(unsigned long where, unsigned long stack)
+static void dump_backtrace_entry(unsigned long where)
 {
+       /*
+        * PC has a physical address when MMU is disabled.
+        */
+       if (!kernel_text_address(where))
+               where = (unsigned long)phys_to_virt(where);
+
        print_ip_sym(where);
-       if (in_exception_text(where))
-               dump_mem("", "Exception stack", stack,
-                        stack + sizeof(struct pt_regs), false);
 }
 
 static void dump_instr(const char *lvl, struct pt_regs *regs)
@@ -172,12 +175,17 @@ static void dump_backtrace(struct pt_regs *regs, struct task_struct *tsk)
        pr_emerg("Call trace:\n");
        while (1) {
                unsigned long where = frame.pc;
+               unsigned long stack;
                int ret;
 
+               dump_backtrace_entry(where);
                ret = unwind_frame(&frame);
                if (ret < 0)
                        break;
-               dump_backtrace_entry(where, frame.sp);
+               stack = frame.sp;
+               if (in_exception_text(where))
+                       dump_mem("", "Exception stack", stack,
+                                stack + sizeof(struct pt_regs), false);
        }
 }
----8<----

> Thanks,
> -Takahiro AKASHI
> ----8<----
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> index 650cc05..5fbd1ea 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> @@ -185,14 +185,12 @@ alternative_endif
> 	mov	x23, sp
> 	and	x23, x23, #~(THREAD_SIZE - 1)
> 	cmp	x20, x23			// check irq re-enterance
> +	mov	x19, sp
> 	beq	1f
> -	str	x29, [x19, #IRQ_FRAME_FP]
> -	str	x21, [x19, #IRQ_FRAME_SP]
> -	str	x22, [x19, #IRQ_FRAME_PC]
> -	mov	x29, x24
> -1:	mov	x19, sp
> -	csel	x23, x19, x24, eq		// x24 = top of irq stack
> -	mov	sp, x23
> +	mov	sp, x24				// x24 = top of irq stack
> +	stp	x29, x22, [sp, #-32]!
> +	mov	x29, sp
> +1:
> 	.endm
> 
> 	/*

Is it possible to decide which stack is used without aborted SP information?
In addition, I'm curious about an origin of #-32.

Thanks!

Best Regards
Jungseok Lee

  reply	other threads:[~2015-10-14 12:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-07 15:28 [PATCH v4 0/2] arm64: Introduce IRQ stack Jungseok Lee
2015-10-07 15:28 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-07 15:28 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] " Jungseok Lee
2015-10-07 15:28   ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-08 10:25   ` Pratyush Anand
2015-10-08 10:25     ` Pratyush Anand
2015-10-08 14:32     ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-08 14:32       ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-08 16:51       ` Pratyush Anand
2015-10-08 16:51         ` Pratyush Anand
2015-10-07 15:28 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: Expand the stack trace feature to support " Jungseok Lee
2015-10-07 15:28   ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-09 14:24   ` James Morse
2015-10-09 14:24     ` James Morse
2015-10-12 14:53     ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-12 14:53       ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-12 16:34       ` James Morse
2015-10-12 16:34         ` James Morse
2015-10-12 22:13         ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-12 22:13           ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-13 11:00           ` James Morse
2015-10-13 11:00             ` James Morse
2015-10-13 15:00             ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-13 15:00               ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-14 12:12               ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-14 12:12                 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-15 15:59                 ` James Morse
2015-10-15 15:59                   ` James Morse
2015-10-16 13:01                   ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-16 13:01                     ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-16 16:06                     ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-16 16:06                       ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-17 13:38                       ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-17 13:38                         ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-19 16:18                         ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-19 16:18                           ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-20 13:08                           ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-20 13:08                             ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-21 15:14                             ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-21 15:14                               ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-14  7:13     ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-14  7:13       ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-14 12:24       ` Jungseok Lee [this message]
2015-10-14 12:24         ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-14 12:55         ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-14 12:55           ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-15  4:19           ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-15  4:19             ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-15 13:39             ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-15 13:39               ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-19  6:47               ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-19  6:47                 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-20 13:19                 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-20 13:19                   ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-15 14:24     ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-15 14:24       ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-15 16:01       ` James Morse
2015-10-15 16:01         ` James Morse
2015-10-16 13:02         ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-16 13:02           ` Jungseok Lee

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=EB44D363-ACBA-48DB-B4EA-EDE1B87B99C8@gmail.com \
    --to=jungseoklee85@gmail.com \
    --cc=barami97@gmail.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \
    --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: 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.