Re: [Xenomai] [RFC] Consolidated exception prologue/epiloge for x86 and ARM

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 2015-03-02 18:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 06:39:22PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2015-02-27 22:24, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:21:30PM +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 09:37:45PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-02-27 21:27, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 09:12:14PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> just pushed a first implementation of the general model that I proposed
>>>>>>> for exception handling. You can find it at
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://git.xenomai.org/ipipe-jki.git/log/?h=queues/trap-rework
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, the clean way to pass virtual + physical flags is to use
>>>>>> arch_mangle_bits. Using two longs (potentially 128 bits then) is
>>>>>> completely useless since one of the longs simply has one significant
>>>>>> bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> The costs of mangling is higher than using two regs for passing that
>>>>> data as-is, both binary and LOC-wise (tried it). Plus the code is more
>>>>> readable.
>>>>
>>>> That is false on ARM. On ARM gcc does not pass structs by values in
>>>> registers. The values get passed on stack.
>>>
>>> Sorry, misread the assembler. They are passed by registers, however
>>> the registers get uselessly saved on stack, then restored to other
>>> registers. 
>>>
>>> struct foo {
>>> 	int x;
>>> 	int y;
>>> };
>>>
>>> int f(struct foo f)
>>> {
>>> 	return f.x + f.y;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Gives, with -Os:
>>> 00000000 <f>:
>>>    0:   b082            sub     sp, #8
>>>    2:   ab02            add     r3, sp, #8
>>>    4:   e903 0003       stmdb   r3, {r0, r1}
>>>    8:   e89d 0009       ldmia.w sp, {r0, r3}
>>>    c:   4418            add     r0, r3
>>>    e:   b002            add     sp, #8
>>>   10:   4770            bx      lr
>>>
>>
>> Ouch. I missed that this sneaked in.
>>
>> The complications with the existing mangle functions are that they do
>> not play well with what I need for the existing
>> ipipe_restore_root_nosync. I can open-code the latter (size increases),
>> extend the former to alternatively return architectural flags (instead
>> of boolean), or provide another wrapper to convert the virt bit into flags.
>>
>> Hmm, or - and that's probably cleanest - I simply align
>> ipipe_restore_root_nosync to ipipe_restore_root argument-wise. The
>> latter takes "x" (stall) as boolean, the former as architectural flags.
>> That's highly confusing anyway. And it seems there are no users to break
>> in Xenomai, despite that it is exported to modules.
> 
> Or simply use arch_mangle_bits ?

This function does not exist. Or what do you mean?

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux