[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49BED8A2.9010603@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:54:26 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: akataria@...are.com
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: VMI broken on tip/master...
Alok Kataria wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 16:45 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> Alok Kataria wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> I was seeing a early fault when running tip/master with VMI enabled on
>>> VMware platform.
>>> This early fault was in the vmi_patch code where we are applying
>>> paravirt_alternatives. After some trials i noticed that this is
>>> reproducible only with CONFIG_TRACING. With that disabled my VM boots
>>> again.
>>>
>>> I started a git bisect after that, and git pointed to this as the bad
>>> commit
>>>
>>> commit 6cc3c6e12bb039047974ad2e7e2d46d15a1b762f
>>> trace_clock: fix preemption bug
>>>
>>> I then reverted that commit from tip/master and the system did boot.
>>> But I fail to understand how this simple patch would be causing things
>>> to fail in VMI. Any ideas ?
>>>
>>>
>> Nope. My first guess is that this is a misbisection, but the fact that
>> reverting helps tends to undermine that diagnosis.
>>
>> What crash are you seeing? What kind of fault? At what instruction?
>>
>
> It being a early fault, nothing is printed on the console the system
> just stays stuck in this early_fault code in arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S
>
> I don't understand why is this not printing anything at this early fault
> though, the system just enters the hlt_loop and stays there.
>
It should drop something onto the vga console (and/or serial port?).
>> Doing what? It's a bit hard to tell what you're actually seeing.
>>
> I did some more debugging and I think i know what the problem is
> The objdump for trace_clock_local looks like this
>
> c1070c24 <trace_clock_local>:
> c1070c24: 55 push %ebp
> c1070c25: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
> c1070c27: 53 push %ebx
> c1070c28: 83 ec 08 sub $0x8,%esp
> c1070c2b: ff 15 5c 87 3d c1 call *0xc13d875c
> c1070c31: ba 64 87 3d c1 mov $0xc13d8764,%edx
> c1070c36: 89 45 f4 mov %eax,0xfffffff4(%ebp)
> c1070c39: ff 12 call *(%edx) <<=====*
> c1070c3b: e8 cd 68 f9 ff call c100750d <sched_clock>
> c1070c40: 89 c1 mov %eax,%ecx
> c1070c42: 8b 45 f4 mov 0xfffffff4(%ebp),%eax
> c1070c45: ff 15 60 87 3d c1 call *0xc13d8760
>
> Notice instruction on c1070c39 we have "call *(edx)",
> edx was just loaded with the address for the paravirt call.
> when we try to replace that to a call to vmi specific function, maybe we
> hit a BUG_ON(len < 5) in vmi's patch_internal code, because now the
> instruction length is less than 5.
>
> Is there is a way to get GCC to not do such fancy tricks, and instead do
> a direct "call 0xc13d8764" ?
Well, indirect "call *0xc13d875c". But yes, its hard to see what gcc
thinks its getting out of doing the indirect call via %edx. We
definitely don't want gcc doing such things, even if it does make sense
(such as calling an op multiple times, and CSEing the pointer); given
that we generate all this in asm anyway, we could force it. Does this help?
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
index d4fec1f..62dfc51 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
@@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ extern struct pv_lock_ops pv_lock_ops;
#define paravirt_type(op) \
[paravirt_typenum] "i" (PARAVIRT_PATCH(op)), \
- [paravirt_opptr] "m" (op)
+ [paravirt_opptr] "i" (&(op))
#define paravirt_clobber(clobber) \
[paravirt_clobber] "i" (clobber)
@@ -449,7 +449,7 @@ int paravirt_disable_iospace(void);
* offset into the paravirt_patch_template structure, and can therefore be
* freely converted back into a structure offset.
*/
-#define PARAVIRT_CALL "call *%[paravirt_opptr];"
+#define PARAVIRT_CALL "call *%c[paravirt_opptr];"
/*
* These macros are intended to wrap calls through one of the paravirt
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists