From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux390@de.ibm.com,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
Subject: Re: sched, s390: Fix the fallout of increasing the offset of 'thread_struct' within 'task_struct'
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:31:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55AD065B.1050103@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150720073417.GA10134@gmail.com>
On 07/20/2015 12:34 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Guenter <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Commit 0c8c0f03e3a2 ("x86/fpu, sched: Dynamically allocate 'struct fpu'")
>> causes s390 builds in mainline to fail as follows.
>>
>> arch/s390/kernel/traps.c: Assembler messages:
>> arch/s390/kernel/traps.c:262: Error: operand out of range
>> (0x00000000000023e8 is not between 0x0000000000000000 and 0x0000000000000fff)
>> arch/s390/kernel/traps.c:300: Error: operand out of range
>> (0x00000000000023e8 is not between 0x0000000000000000 and 0x0000000000000fff)
>
>
> Yeah, so I'm really out on a limb here as I know next to nothing about s390
> assembly, but the build failure appears to be analogous to the arm64 one: the
> offset of thread_struct fields within task_struct increased due to commit
> 0c8c0f03e3a2 ("x86/fpu, sched: Dynamically allocate 'struct fpu'"), which
> increased assembly offsets beyond the limit this instruction can apparently
> encode.
>
> Does the (untested!) patch below help?
>
> It's an equivalent transformation on the C side, but it might cause GCC to
> generate different assembly code, because we now have a temporary variable with
> much smaller offsets.
>
> The code is also a tiny bit cleaner this way, as the 'current->thread.fp_regs'
> pattern isn't repeated twice.
>
> In case this works:
>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
> ================>
>
> arch/s390/kernel/traps.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/traps.c b/arch/s390/kernel/traps.c
> index 4d96c9f53455..db6f0eec55b5 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -251,6 +251,7 @@ int alloc_vector_registers(struct task_struct *tsk)
>
> void vector_exception(struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> + s390_fp_regs *fp_regs = ¤t->thread.fp_regs;
> int si_code, vic;
>
> if (!MACHINE_HAS_VX) {
> @@ -259,8 +260,9 @@ void vector_exception(struct pt_regs *regs)
> }
>
> /* get vector interrupt code from fpc */
> - asm volatile("stfpc %0" : "=m" (current->thread.fp_regs.fpc));
> - vic = (current->thread.fp_regs.fpc & 0xf00) >> 8;
> + asm volatile("stfpc %0" : "=m" (fp_regs->fpc));
> + vic = (fp_regs->fpc & 0xf00) >> 8;
> +
No idea why, but this still fails with the same error (I suspect the compiler
tries to optimize the fp_regs variable away). I can compile the code by using
a local variable '__u32 fpc', but obviously I don't know if that is correct.
I don't have a working qemu configuration for s390, so I can not run any tests.
Guenter
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-20 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-18 23:27 Build error due to "x86/fpu, sched: Dynamically allocate 'struct fpu'" Guenter
2015-07-18 23:34 ` Guenter
2015-07-18 23:34 ` Guenter
2015-07-20 7:20 ` [PATCH] sched, arm64: Fix the fallout of increasing the offset of 'thread_struct' within 'task_struct' Ingo Molnar
2015-07-20 7:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-07-20 13:52 ` Guenter Roeck
2015-07-20 13:52 ` Guenter Roeck
2015-07-20 14:03 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-20 14:03 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-20 7:34 ` sched, s390: " Ingo Molnar
2015-07-20 14:31 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55AD065B.1050103@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux390@de.ibm.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.