[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160225135205.GF21932@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:52:05 +0100
From: Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, bsingharora@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, pmladek@...e.com, jeyu@...hat.com,
jkosina@...e.cz, live-patching@...r.kernel.org, mbenes@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] powerpc/ftrace: Prepare for -mprofile-kernel
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 01:28:27AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> @@ -450,17 +448,44 @@ static unsigned long stub_for_addr(const Elf64_Shdr *sechdrs,
> return (unsigned long)&stubs[i];
> }
>
> +#ifdef CC_USING_MPROFILE_KERNEL
> +static int is_early_mcount_callsite(u32 *instruction)
> +{
> + /* -mprofile-kernel sequence starting with
> + * mflr r0 and maybe std r0, LRSAVE(r1).
> + */
> + if ((instruction[-3] == PPC_INST_MFLR &&
> + instruction[-2] == PPC_INST_STD_LR) ||
> + instruction[-2] == PPC_INST_MFLR) {
> + /* Nothing to be done here, it's an _mcount
> + * call location and r2 will have to be
> + * restored in the _mcount function.
> + */
> + return 1;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +#else
*You* said this might page fault :)
Did we agree yet whether we insist on a streamlined compiler?
(GCC commit e95d0248dace required)?
If not:
if (instruction[-2] == PPC_INST_STD_LR)
{
if (instruction[-3] == PPC_INST_MFLR)
return 1;
}
else if (instruction[-2] == PPC_INST_MFLR)
return 1;
return 0;
leaves less freedom for the compiler to "optimise".
Signed-off-by: Torsten Duwe <duwe@...e.de>
Torsten
Powered by blists - more mailing lists