lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [patch 05/12] x86/irq: Provide macro for inlining irq stack switching
Date
On Tue, Feb 09 2021 at 10:22, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 04:12:33PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 08 2021 at 14:42, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:49:08PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> >> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>> >> +
>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER
>> >> +# define IRQSTACK_CALL_CONSTRAINT , ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT
>> >> +#else
>> >> +# define IRQSTACK_CALL_CONSTRAINT
>> >> +#endif
>> >
>> > Is this really needed? i.e. does ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT actually affect
>> > code generation with !FRAME_POINTER?
>>
>> The problem is that if the asm inline is the first operation in a
>> function some compilers insert the asm inline before setting up the
>> frame pointer.
>>
>> That's actualy irrelevant here as the compiler cannot reorder against
>> the C code leading to the asm inline. So we can probably replace it with
>> a big fat comment.
>
> Actually, I think keeping ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT is a good idea.
>
> What I meant was, is the #ifdef needed? My previous understanding was
> that ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT has no effect for !FRAME_POINTER (i.e., ORC).
>
> So is there any reason to *not* have ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT with ORC?

You're right. No idea how I ended up with that ifdef.

Thanks,

tglx

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-09 21:30    [W:0.074 / U:1.912 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site