Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Mar 2017 21:01:24 +0000 | From | Abel Vesa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv4] arm: ftrace: Adds support for CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS |
| |
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:54:29AM +0000, Abel Vesa wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:46:38AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:22:27AM +0000, Abel Vesa wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:58:49AM +0100, Nicolai Stange wrote: > > > > Hi Abel, > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 28 2017, Abel Vesa wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 04:52:06PM +0100, Nicolai Stange wrote: > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 24 2017, Abel Vesa wrote: > > > > >> Wouldn't it be better (and more consistent with other archs) to have > > > > >> > > > > >> pt_regs->ARM_lr = original lr > > > > >> pt_refs->ARM_pc = current lr > > > > >> > > > > >> instead? > > > > > > > > The stack would look like this then > > > > > > > > @ ... | ARM_ip | ARM_sp | ARM_lr | ARM_pc | ... | > > > > @ 0 4 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 > > > > @ R0 | R1 | ... | LR | SP + 4 | original LR | original PC | PSR | OLD_R0 | original LR | Just to make sure we're on the same page. If we are replacing the LR with the original_LR is it worth keeping around the one pushed before the ftrace_regs_caller is called?
Another thing, PC needs to be new_LR and then we can restore all regs r0 through r15 like this:
ldmia sp, {r0-r15} > > > > > > > > I.e. the pt_regs would capture almost the full context of the > > > > instrumented function (except for ip). > > > > > > > So basicly what you are saying is: > > > - instead of current LR save original LR (previous one saved in instrumented function epilog) > > > - instead of current PC save original PC (previous one saved in instrumented function epilog) > > > > > > I still don't see the point of saving the actual value of PC since nobody will ever > > > restore it. In case of livepatch it will get overwritten anyway. As for LR, I agree, > > > it could be the original one in pt_regs. > > > > > > I'll look into this sometime today or tomorrow and get back with updates. > > > > Which is exactly what I proposed, with code, on one of the previous > > iterations of this patch... > Fair enough. I probably missunderstood your comments then. > > Thanks. > > > > -- > > RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ > > FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up > > according to speedtest.net.
| |