Bug in the _save_fp_context.

Bug in the _save_fp_context.

[Carsten Langgaard]

I think there is a bug in the _save_fp_context function in
arch/mips/kernel/r4k_fpu.S

The problem is the following piece of code:

 jr ra
 .set nomacro
 EX(sw t0,SC_FPC_EIR(a0))
 nop
 .set macro

First of all what should the ".set nomacro" do?
If it means that the EX macro shouldn't be used then this entry wouldn't
get into __ex_table, which would be wrong.
But it look like it uses the macro anyway, regardless of the ".set
nomacro", at least with the compiler I use.
Never the less we do not handle entries in the __ex_table which is
located in a branch delay.
So we need to handle the situation where we take a page fault on an
instruction which is located in a brach delay slot, or we don't put the
"potential" faulting instruction in a delay slot.

Any ideas, how we should handle this in a nice and clean way?

/Carsten

--
_    _ ____  ___   Carsten Langgaard   Mailto:carstenl@mips.com
|\  /|||___)(___   MIPS Denmark        Direct: +45 4486 5527
| \/ |||    ____)  Lautrupvang 4B      Switch: +45 4486 5555
  TECHNOLOGIES     2750 Ballerup       Fax...: +45 4486 5556
                   Denmark             http://www.mips.com

Re: Bug in the _save_fp_context.

[Kevin D. Kissell]

> I think there is a bug in the _save_fp_context function in
> arch/mips/kernel/r4k_fpu.S
> 
> The problem is the following piece of code:
> 
>  jr ra
>  .set nomacro
>  EX(sw t0,SC_FPC_EIR(a0))
>  nop
>  .set macro
> 
> First of all what should the ".set nomacro" do?
> If it means that the EX macro shouldn't be used then this entry wouldn't
> get into __ex_table, which would be wrong.
> But it look like it uses the macro anyway, regardless of the ".set
> nomacro", at least with the compiler I use.

Not surprising, really.  "EX" is presumably a cpp macro
that gets expanded by gcc from the .S file, based on
some include file.  .set directives affect only the assembler,
and would inhibit assembler-level macros only.  I'm not
sure just what the definition of an assembler macro
would be - it may or may not include pseudo-instructions
like "la" or "li 32_bit_constant".  I *think* that what the
author was trying to do here was to ensure that the
"sw" instruction in the EX expansion was really and
truly a single instruction.

> Never the less we do not handle entries in the __ex_table which is
> located in a branch delay.
> So we need to handle the situation where we take a page fault on an
> instruction which is located in a brach delay slot, or we don't put the
> "potential" faulting instruction in a delay slot.
> 
> Any ideas, how we should handle this in a nice and clean way?

Is the __ex_table really ending up in the delay slot?
Just looking at the source, I have the impression
that the "sw t0,..." instruction should be in the delay
slot, followed by the __ex_table.

On another topic, now that I've patched the kernel to
turn off the stupid stuck interrupt on my Malta board,
I've realized that I can't just connect my old Atlas SCSI
disk.  I'm torn between ordering a Tekram 390 PCI
SCSI card, which should be able to use our "MIPS
safe" NCR driver as-is (I hope) and buying an IDE
disk and going through the network install ritual.
Which do you recommend?  One thing I really never
knew was just what kernel config options I need to
select to build a kernel that can do the NFS-root
bootstrap.  Can you help me there?

            Regards,

            Kevin K.

Re: Bug in the _save_fp_context.

[Kevin D. Kissell]

> I think there is a bug in the _save_fp_context function in
> arch/mips/kernel/r4k_fpu.S
> 
> The problem is the following piece of code:
> 
>  jr ra
>  .set nomacro
>  EX(sw t0,SC_FPC_EIR(a0))
>  nop
>  .set macro
> 
> First of all what should the ".set nomacro" do?
> If it means that the EX macro shouldn't be used then this entry wouldn't
> get into __ex_table, which would be wrong.
> But it look like it uses the macro anyway, regardless of the ".set
> nomacro", at least with the compiler I use.

Not surprising, really.  "EX" is presumably a cpp macro
that gets expanded by gcc from the .S file, based on
some include file.  .set directives affect only the assembler,
and would inhibit assembler-level macros only.  I'm not
sure just what the definition of an assembler macro
would be - it may or may not include pseudo-instructions
like "la" or "li 32_bit_constant".  I *think* that what the
author was trying to do here was to ensure that the
"sw" instruction in the EX expansion was really and
truly a single instruction.

> Never the less we do not handle entries in the __ex_table which is
> located in a branch delay.
> So we need to handle the situation where we take a page fault on an
> instruction which is located in a brach delay slot, or we don't put the
> "potential" faulting instruction in a delay slot.
> 
> Any ideas, how we should handle this in a nice and clean way?

Is the __ex_table really ending up in the delay slot?
Just looking at the source, I have the impression
that the "sw t0,..." instruction should be in the delay
slot, followed by the __ex_table.

On another topic, now that I've patched the kernel to
turn off the stupid stuck interrupt on my Malta board,
I've realized that I can't just connect my old Atlas SCSI
disk.  I'm torn between ordering a Tekram 390 PCI
SCSI card, which should be able to use our "MIPS
safe" NCR driver as-is (I hope) and buying an IDE
disk and going through the network install ritual.
Which do you recommend?  One thing I really never
knew was just what kernel config options I need to
select to build a kernel that can do the NFS-root
bootstrap.  Can you help me there?

            Regards,

            Kevin K.

Re: Bug in the _save_fp_context.

[Kevin D. Kissell]

Oops!  I hadn't noticed that Carsten had copied the
Linux-MIPS mailing list on this, so I treated it as a
point-to-point communication.  The rest of you can
ignore my last paragraph!

            Kevin K.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
To: "Carsten Langgaard" <carstenl@mips.com>; <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Bug in the _save_fp_context.


> > I think there is a bug in the _save_fp_context function in
> > arch/mips/kernel/r4k_fpu.S
> >
> > The problem is the following piece of code:
> >
> >  jr ra
> >  .set nomacro
> >  EX(sw t0,SC_FPC_EIR(a0))
> >  nop
> >  .set macro
> >
> > First of all what should the ".set nomacro" do?
> > If it means that the EX macro shouldn't be used then this entry wouldn't
> > get into __ex_table, which would be wrong.
> > But it look like it uses the macro anyway, regardless of the ".set
> > nomacro", at least with the compiler I use.
>
> Not surprising, really.  "EX" is presumably a cpp macro
> that gets expanded by gcc from the .S file, based on
> some include file.  .set directives affect only the assembler,
> and would inhibit assembler-level macros only.  I'm not
> sure just what the definition of an assembler macro
> would be - it may or may not include pseudo-instructions
> like "la" or "li 32_bit_constant".  I *think* that what the
> author was trying to do here was to ensure that the
> "sw" instruction in the EX expansion was really and
> truly a single instruction.
>
> > Never the less we do not handle entries in the __ex_table which is
> > located in a branch delay.
> > So we need to handle the situation where we take a page fault on an
> > instruction which is located in a brach delay slot, or we don't put the
> > "potential" faulting instruction in a delay slot.
> >
> > Any ideas, how we should handle this in a nice and clean way?
>
> Is the __ex_table really ending up in the delay slot?
> Just looking at the source, I have the impression
> that the "sw t0,..." instruction should be in the delay
> slot, followed by the __ex_table.
>
> On another topic, now that I've patched the kernel to
> turn off the stupid stuck interrupt on my Malta board,
> I've realized that I can't just connect my old Atlas SCSI
> disk.  I'm torn between ordering a Tekram 390 PCI
> SCSI card, which should be able to use our "MIPS
> safe" NCR driver as-is (I hope) and buying an IDE
> disk and going through the network install ritual.
> Which do you recommend?  One thing I really never
> knew was just what kernel config options I need to
> select to build a kernel that can do the NFS-root
> bootstrap.  Can you help me there?
>
>             Regards,
>
>             Kevin K.
>

Re: Bug in the _save_fp_context.

[Kevin D. Kissell]

Oops!  I hadn't noticed that Carsten had copied the
Linux-MIPS mailing list on this, so I treated it as a
point-to-point communication.  The rest of you can
ignore my last paragraph!

            Kevin K.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
To: "Carsten Langgaard" <carstenl@mips.com>; <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Bug in the _save_fp_context.


> > I think there is a bug in the _save_fp_context function in
> > arch/mips/kernel/r4k_fpu.S
> >
> > The problem is the following piece of code:
> >
> >  jr ra
> >  .set nomacro
> >  EX(sw t0,SC_FPC_EIR(a0))
> >  nop
> >  .set macro
> >
> > First of all what should the ".set nomacro" do?
> > If it means that the EX macro shouldn't be used then this entry wouldn't
> > get into __ex_table, which would be wrong.
> > But it look like it uses the macro anyway, regardless of the ".set
> > nomacro", at least with the compiler I use.
>
> Not surprising, really.  "EX" is presumably a cpp macro
> that gets expanded by gcc from the .S file, based on
> some include file.  .set directives affect only the assembler,
> and would inhibit assembler-level macros only.  I'm not
> sure just what the definition of an assembler macro
> would be - it may or may not include pseudo-instructions
> like "la" or "li 32_bit_constant".  I *think* that what the
> author was trying to do here was to ensure that the
> "sw" instruction in the EX expansion was really and
> truly a single instruction.
>
> > Never the less we do not handle entries in the __ex_table which is
> > located in a branch delay.
> > So we need to handle the situation where we take a page fault on an
> > instruction which is located in a brach delay slot, or we don't put the
> > "potential" faulting instruction in a delay slot.
> >
> > Any ideas, how we should handle this in a nice and clean way?
>
> Is the __ex_table really ending up in the delay slot?
> Just looking at the source, I have the impression
> that the "sw t0,..." instruction should be in the delay
> slot, followed by the __ex_table.
>
> On another topic, now that I've patched the kernel to
> turn off the stupid stuck interrupt on my Malta board,
> I've realized that I can't just connect my old Atlas SCSI
> disk.  I'm torn between ordering a Tekram 390 PCI
> SCSI card, which should be able to use our "MIPS
> safe" NCR driver as-is (I hope) and buying an IDE
> disk and going through the network install ritual.
> Which do you recommend?  One thing I really never
> knew was just what kernel config options I need to
> select to build a kernel that can do the NFS-root
> bootstrap.  Can you help me there?
>
>             Regards,
>
>             Kevin K.
>

Re: Bug in the _save_fp_context.

[Carsten Langgaard]

"Kevin D. Kissell" wrote:

> > I think there is a bug in the _save_fp_context function in
> > arch/mips/kernel/r4k_fpu.S
> >
> > The problem is the following piece of code:
> >
> >  jr ra
> >  .set nomacro
> >  EX(sw t0,SC_FPC_EIR(a0))
> >  nop
> >  .set macro
> >
> > First of all what should the ".set nomacro" do?
> > If it means that the EX macro shouldn't be used then this entry wouldn't
> > get into __ex_table, which would be wrong.
> > But it look like it uses the macro anyway, regardless of the ".set
> > nomacro", at least with the compiler I use.
>
> Not surprising, really.  "EX" is presumably a cpp macro
> that gets expanded by gcc from the .S file, based on
> some include file.  .set directives affect only the assembler,
> and would inhibit assembler-level macros only.  I'm not
> sure just what the definition of an assembler macro
> would be - it may or may not include pseudo-instructions
> like "la" or "li 32_bit_constant".  I *think* that what the
> author was trying to do here was to ensure that the
> "sw" instruction in the EX expansion was really and
> truly a single instruction.
>
> > Never the less we do not handle entries in the __ex_table which is
> > located in a branch delay.
> > So we need to handle the situation where we take a page fault on an
> > instruction which is located in a brach delay slot, or we don't put the
> > "potential" faulting instruction in a delay slot.
> >
> > Any ideas, how we should handle this in a nice and clean way?
>
> Is the __ex_table really ending up in the delay slot?
> Just looking at the source, I have the impression
> that the "sw t0,..." instruction should be in the delay
> slot, followed by the __ex_table.

The problem is that the address of the delay slot is put in the __ex_table
and then we take a page fault EPC is pointing at the jr instruction and not
the delay slot.
This result in a miss match when we try to lookup in __ex_table, resulting in
a kernel crash.

The faulting situation look like this:
EPC = address of delay slot
entry in __ex_table = address of delay slot - 4

Hopes that clarify it a bit more.

>
> On another topic, now that I've patched the kernel to
> turn off the stupid stuck interrupt on my Malta board,
> I've realized that I can't just connect my old Atlas SCSI
> disk.  I'm torn between ordering a Tekram 390 PCI
> SCSI card, which should be able to use our "MIPS
> safe" NCR driver as-is (I hope) and buying an IDE
> disk and going through the network install ritual.
> Which do you recommend?  One thing I really never
> knew was just what kernel config options I need to
> select to build a kernel that can do the NFS-root
> bootstrap.  Can you help me there?
>
>             Regards,
>
>             Kevin K.

--
_    _ ____  ___   Carsten Langgaard   Mailto:carstenl@mips.com
|\  /|||___)(___   MIPS Denmark        Direct: +45 4486 5527
| \/ |||    ____)  Lautrupvang 4B      Switch: +45 4486 5555
  TECHNOLOGIES     2750 Ballerup       Fax...: +45 4486 5556
                   Denmark             http://www.mips.com

SCSI card [Re: Bug in the _save_fp_context.]

[Jun Sun]

"Kevin D. Kissell" wrote:

> On another topic, now that I've patched the kernel to
> turn off the stupid stuck interrupt on my Malta board,
> I've realized that I can't just connect my old Atlas SCSI
> disk.  I'm torn between ordering a Tekram 390 PCI
> SCSI card, which should be able to use our "MIPS
> safe" NCR driver as-is (I hope) and buying an IDE
> disk and going through the network install ritual.
> Which do you recommend?  One thing I really never
> knew was just what kernel config options I need to
> select to build a kernel that can do the NFS-root
> bootstrap.  Can you help me there?
> 

Kevin,

If you store your kernel image on flash and boots from there, using a local
hard disk is not a bad idea.  I recently used a SCSI card based on NCR
53C895A.  I have to turn off some optimization in the driver in order to get
it work.  See some related configs below.

CONFIG_SCSI_NCR53C8XX=y
# CONFIG_SCSI_SYM53C8XX is not set
CONFIG_SCSI_NCR53C8XX_DEFAULT_TAGS=0
CONFIG_SCSI_NCR53C8XX_MAX_TAGS=32
CONFIG_SCSI_NCR53C8XX_SYNC=0

In general NFS root is always easier to get kernel going.  Many defconfigs
under arch/mips/ already have NFS root fs configured as default, at least in
the two I put in, DDB5476 and ocelot.

Jun

Re: Bug in the _save_fp_context.

[Jun Sun]

"Kevin D. Kissell" wrote:
> 
> Oops!  I hadn't noticed that Carsten had copied the
> Linux-MIPS mailing list on this, so I treated it as a
> point-to-point communication.  The rest of you can
> ignore my last paragraph!
> 
>             Kevin K.
> 

Oops!  Please ignore my previous reply too. :-)

Jun