[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190703194614.6bsyfspnpcf4dhfj@treble>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:46:14 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 2 (objtool)
On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 02:45:28PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 10:23:21AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 7/3/19 9:44 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 11:47:02AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > >> On 7/2/19 2:51 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >>> Hi all,
> > >>>
> > >>> Changes since 20190701:
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> on x86_64:
> > >>
> > >> kernel/bpf/core.o: warning: objtool: ___bpf_prog_run()+0x22: can't find switch jump table
> > >
> > > I don't see it on current linux-next/master. Can you share the config
> > > and .o?
> > >
> >
> > This warning happened in 6 of 10 builds for 20190702.
> >
> > Today (20190703) I don't see it at all, but I see this instead:
> > kernel/bpf/core.o: warning: objtool: ___bpf_prog_run()+0xa3: sibling call from callable instruction with modified stack frame
> >
> > Kernel (rand)config file and .o file for 20190702 are attached.
>
> Thanks, I'm able to recreate the sibling call warning with a randconfig
> on today's linux-next.
>
> GCC is doing some funky stuff. With my randconfig, ___bpf_prog_run()
> has 166 indirect calls to its jump table. Seems (a bit!) excessive.
s/calls/jumps/ obviously
>
> I'll need to look into it.
>
> --
> Josh
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists