[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160127125809.GN17028@bubble.grove.modra.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 23:28:09 +1030
From: Alan Modra <amodra@...il.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] ppc64 (le): prepare for -mprofile-kernel
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 09:19:27PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi Torsten,
>
> On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 16:26 +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > The gcc switch -mprofile-kernel, available for ppc64 on gcc > 4.8.5,
> > allows to call _mcount very early in the function, which low-level
> > ASM code and code patching functions need to consider.
> > Especially the link register and the parameter registers are still
> > alive and not yet saved into a new stack frame.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Torsten Duwe <duwe@...e.de>
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > arch/powerpc/kernel/ftrace.c | 12 +++++++++--
> > arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c | 14 +++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
> > index a94f155..e7cd043 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
> > @@ -1206,7 +1206,12 @@ _GLOBAL(enter_prom)
> > #ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
> > _GLOBAL(mcount)
> > _GLOBAL(_mcount)
> > - blr
> > + std r0,LRSAVE(r1) /* gcc6 does this _after_ this call _only_ */
> > + mflr r0
> > + mtctr r0
> > + ld r0,LRSAVE(r1)
> > + mtlr r0
> > + bctr
>
> Can we use r11 instead? eg:
>
> _GLOBAL(_mcount)
> mflr r11
> mtctr r11
> mtlr r0
> bctr
Depends on what you need to support. As Torsten says, the code to
call _mcount when -mprofile-kernel is emitted before the prologue of a
function (similar to -m32), but after the ELFv2 global entry point
code. If you trash r11 here you're killing the static chain pointer,
used by C nested functions or other languages that use a static chain,
eg. Pascal. r11 has *not* been saved for ELFv2.
r12 might be a better choice for a temp reg.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
Powered by blists - more mailing lists