Re: [PATCH] Emulate more instructions in software

[Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:25:55AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> 
> On Apr 18, 2007, at 11:23 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> 
> >
> >On Apr 18, 2007, at 2:13 AM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:11:00AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >>>
> >>>On Apr 18, 2007, at 12:56 AM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Emulate a few more instructions in software - especially useful
> >>>>during
> >>>>singlestepping (xmon/kprobes).
> >>>>
> >>>>Instructions emulated with this patch are mfcr/mtcr rX, mfxer/mtxer
> >>>>rX,
> >>>>mflr/mtlr rX, mfctr/mtctr rX and mr rA,rB.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>
> >>>
> >>>When do we actually need to emulate any of these instructions?  I
> >>>don't see why single stepping would effect the ability to execute
> >>>these instructions.
> >>
> >>In cases when these instructions are kprobed, it'd be possible to
> >>eliminate the single step exception as we can emulate them.
> >>
> >>Most usecases of kprobes are at function entry and in most cases, the
> >>instruction at function entry is mflr r0, which can be emulated. So
> >>you
> >>can get rid of one exception and get a nice speedup too. My other
> >>patch
> >>did just this.
> >
> >Makes sense, how about wrapping the emulation of those instructions
> >in a #if defined(CONFIG_KPROBES) || defined(CONFIG_XMON).  Plus
> >adding a comment about these instructions just be emulated for
> >singlestepping performance and not because they are missing on some
> >platform.
> 
> Ignore this, I see this code is in lib/sstep.c not the main emulation  
> path.
> 
> >Also, do you really see that many mfxer/mtxer.  I'd expect them to be
> >rare.

Right. In fact, there were none in the .o files I checked. I put the
code for it for completeness wrt registers exposed by pt_regs.

Ananth