lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4.2] powerpc/modules: Don't try to restore r2 after a sibling call
Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
> On Thursday 16 November 2017 11:15 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 06:39:03PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>>> Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:58:33PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>>>>>> +int instr_is_link_branch(unsigned int instr)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + return (instr_is_branch_iform(instr) || instr_is_branch_bform(instr)) &&
>>>>>> + (instr & BRANCH_SET_LINK);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> Nitpicking here, but since we're not considering the other branch forms,
>>>>> perhaps this can be renamed to instr_is_link_relative_branch() (or maybe
>>>>> instr_is_relative_branch_link()), just so we're clear :)
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that the absolute/relative bit isn't a "form", but
>>>> rather a bit that can be set for either the b-form (conditional) or the
>>>> i-form (unconditional). And the above function isn't checking the
>>>> absolute bit, so it isn't necessarily a relative branch. Or did I miss
>>>> something?
>>>
>>> Ah, good point. I was coming from the fact that we are only considering the
>>> i-form and b-form branches and not the lr/ctr/tar based branches, which are
>>> always absolute branches, but can also set the link register.
>>
>> Hm, RISC is more complicated than I realized ;-)

As long as 'RISC' gets people to take a look ;D

>>
>>> Thinking about this more, aren't we only interested in relative branches
>>> here (for relocations), so can we actually filter out the absolute branches?
>>> Something like this?
>>>
>>> int instr_is_relative_branch_link(unsigned int instr)
>>> {
>>> return ((instr_is_branch_iform(instr) || instr_is_branch_bform(instr)) &&
>>> !(instr & BRANCH_ABSOLUTE) && (instr & BRANCH_SET_LINK));
>>
>> Yeah, makes sense to me. Here's another try (also untested). If this
>> looks ok, Kamalesh would you mind testing again?

Thanks. That looks good to me.
Acked-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

>>
>> ----8<----
>>
>> From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH v4.2] powerpc/modules: Don't try to restore r2 after a sibling call
>>
>> When attempting to load a livepatch module, I got the following error:
>>
>> module_64: patch_module: Expect noop after relocate, got 3c820000
>>
>> The error was triggered by the following code in
>> unregister_netdevice_queue():
>>
>> 14c: 00 00 00 48 b 14c <unregister_netdevice_queue+0x14c>
>> 14c: R_PPC64_REL24 net_set_todo
>> 150: 00 00 82 3c addis r4,r2,0
>>
>> GCC didn't insert a nop after the branch to net_set_todo() because it's
>> a sibling call, so it never returns. The nop isn't needed after the
>> branch in that case.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
>
> Reviewed-and-tested-by: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Thanks, Kamalesh!


- Naveen


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-18 09:34    [W:0.112 / U:3.640 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site