From: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
Cc: Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [v2] ppc64/book3s: fix branching to out of line handlers in relocation kernel
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 12:44:00 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56FB7CB8.1010801@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3qZT2T1R7fz9sDC@ozlabs.org>
On 03/30/2016 05:55 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-29-03 at 18:34:37 UTC, Hari Bathini wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/exceptions-64s.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/exceptions-64s.S
>> index 7716ceb..e598580 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/exceptions-64s.S
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/exceptions-64s.S
>> @@ -764,8 +764,8 @@ kvmppc_skip_Hinterrupt:
>> #endif
>>
>> /*
>> - * Code from here down to __end_handlers is invoked from the
>> - * exception prologs above. Because the prologs assemble the
>> + * Code from here down to end of out of line handlers is invoked from
>> + * the exception prologs above. Because the prologs assemble the
> I think it would be better to just replace __end_handlers with __end_interrupts,
> that way it's entirely clear what location you're talking about.
>
>> @@ -953,11 +953,6 @@ hv_facility_unavailable_relon_trampoline:
>> #endif
>> STD_RELON_EXCEPTION_PSERIES(0x5700, 0x1700, altivec_assist)
>>
>> - /* Other future vectors */
>> - .align 7
>> - .globl __end_interrupts
>> -__end_interrupts:
>> -
>> .align 7
>> system_call_entry:
>> b system_call_common
>> @@ -1230,10 +1225,6 @@ END_FTR_SECTION_IFSET(CPU_FTR_VSX)
>> STD_EXCEPTION_COMMON(0xf60, facility_unavailable, facility_unavailable_exception)
>> STD_EXCEPTION_COMMON(0xf80, hv_facility_unavailable, facility_unavailable_exception)
>>
>> - .align 7
>> - .globl __end_handlers
>> -__end_handlers:
>> -
> Sorry I wasn't clear in my last mail, please do this as a separate cleanup patch
> after this patch.
ok..
>> @@ -1244,6 +1235,16 @@ __end_handlers:
>> STD_RELON_EXCEPTION_PSERIES_OOL(0xf60, facility_unavailable)
>> STD_RELON_EXCEPTION_HV_OOL(0xf80, hv_facility_unavailable)
>>
>> + /* FIXME: For now, let us move the __end_interrupts marker down past
> Why is it FIXME?
>
> In general I don't want to merge code that adds a FIXME unless there is some
> very good reason.
>
> AFAICS this is a permanent solution isn't it?
Except for a few short interrupt vectors like 0x4f00, 04f20, etc., all other
vectors defined till __end_interrupts marker ensure that LOAD_HANDLER() is
used for branching to labels like system_call_entry, data_access_common,
etc.
that are currently not copied to real 0 in relocation case.
So, we are forced to move the __end_interrupts marker down only to handle
space constraint in the short vectors. So, I added the FIXME to remind the
scope for improvement in the code. But after thinking over again now, moving
the marker down makes us copy an additional 1~2 KB along with the 21~22 KB
that we are copying already. So, not much of an improvement to lose
sleep over
or to add a FIXME, I guess. Your thoughts?
Also, FIXME is the reason, why I did not replace __end_handlers with
__end_interrupts in the comment earlier.
>> + * the out-of-line handlers, to make sure we also copy OOL handlers
>> + * to real adress 0x100 when running a relocatable kernel. This helps
> It doesn't "help" it's 100% required.
Yep. Will change the wording.
Thanks for the review!
- Hari
>> + * in cases where interrupt vectors are not long enough (like 0x4f00,
>> + * 0x4f20, etc.) to branch out to OOL handlers with LOAD_HANDLER().
>> + */
>> + .align 7
>> + .globl __end_interrupts
>> +__end_interrupts:
>> +
>> #if defined(CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_POWERNV)
>> /*
>> * Data area reserved for FWNMI option.
>
> cheers
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-30 7:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-29 18:34 [PATCH v2] ppc64/book3s: fix branching to out of line handlers in relocation kernel Hari Bathini
2016-03-30 0:25 ` [v2] " Michael Ellerman
2016-03-30 7:14 ` Hari Bathini [this message]
2016-03-30 7:44 ` Hari Bathini
2016-03-30 11:17 ` Michael Ellerman
2016-03-30 16:57 ` Hari Bathini
2016-03-30 11:21 ` Michael Ellerman
2016-04-21 13:39 ` Michael Ellerman
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=56FB7CB8.1010801@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=hbathini@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=mikey@neuling.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).