From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <duwe@lst.de>
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EA3B1A0060
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:52:09 +1100 (AEDT)
Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20013140307
 for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:52:08 +1100 (AEDT)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:52:05 +0100
From: Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, bsingharora@gmail.com,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
 kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pmladek@suse.com, jeyu@redhat.com,
 jkosina@suse.cz, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, mbenes@suse.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] powerpc/ftrace: Prepare for -mprofile-kernel
Message-ID: <20160225135205.GF21932@lst.de>
References: <1456324115-21144-1-git-send-email-mpe@ellerman.id.au>
 <1456324115-21144-4-git-send-email-mpe@ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <1456324115-21144-4-git-send-email-mpe@ellerman.id.au>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 01:28:27AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> @@ -450,17 +448,44 @@ static unsigned long stub_for_addr(const Elf64_Shdr *sechdrs,
>  	return (unsigned long)&stubs[i];
>  }
>  
> +#ifdef CC_USING_MPROFILE_KERNEL
> +static int is_early_mcount_callsite(u32 *instruction)
> +{
> +	/* -mprofile-kernel sequence starting with
> +	 * mflr r0 and maybe std r0, LRSAVE(r1).
> +	 */
> +	if ((instruction[-3] == PPC_INST_MFLR &&
> +	     instruction[-2] == PPC_INST_STD_LR) ||
> +	    instruction[-2] == PPC_INST_MFLR) {
> +		/* Nothing to be done here, it's an _mcount
> +		 * call location and r2 will have to be
> +		 * restored in the _mcount function.
> +		 */
> +		return 1;
> +	}
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +#else

*You* said this might page fault :)

Did we agree yet whether we insist on a streamlined compiler?
(GCC commit e95d0248dace required)?

If not:
if (instruction[-2] == PPC_INST_STD_LR)
  {
    if (instruction[-3] == PPC_INST_MFLR)
      return 1;
  }
else if (instruction[-2] == PPC_INST_MFLR)
    return 1;
return 0;

leaves less freedom for the compiler to "optimise".

Signed-off-by: Torsten Duwe <duwe@suse.de>

	Torsten