From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, mhiramat@kernel.org,
revest@chromium.org, rostedt@goodmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] ftrace: arm64: move from REGS to ARGS
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:52:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y3YRqvfYOP+RBk8r@FVFF77S0Q05N> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221115112701.GB32523@willie-the-truck>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:27:03AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 05:05:20PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > This commit replaces arm64's support for FTRACE_WITH_REGS with support
> > for FTRACE_WITH_ARGS. This removes some overhead and complexity, and
> > removes some latent issues with inconsistent presentation of struct
> > pt_regs (which can only be reliably saved/restored at exception
> > boundaries).
>
> [...]
>
> > @@ -78,10 +77,71 @@ static inline unsigned long ftrace_call_adjust(unsigned long addr)
> > return addr;
> > }
> >
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS
> > struct dyn_ftrace;
> > struct ftrace_ops;
> > -struct ftrace_regs;
> > +
> > +#define arch_ftrace_get_regs(regs) NULL
> > +
> > +struct ftrace_regs {
> > + /* x0 - x8 */
> > + unsigned long regs[9];
> > + unsigned long __unused;
> > +
> > + unsigned long fp;
> > + unsigned long lr;
> > +
> > + unsigned long sp;
> > + unsigned long pc;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static __always_inline unsigned long
> > +ftrace_regs_get_instruction_pointer(const struct ftrace_regs *fregs)
> > +{
> > + return fregs->pc;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static __always_inline void
> > +ftrace_regs_set_instruction_pointer(struct ftrace_regs *fregs,
> > + unsigned long pc)
> > +{
> > + fregs->pc = pc;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static __always_inline unsigned long
> > +ftrace_regs_get_stack_pointer(const struct ftrace_regs *fregs)
> > +{
> > + return fregs->sp;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static __always_inline unsigned long
> > +ftrace_regs_get_argument(struct ftrace_regs *fregs, unsigned int n)
> > +{
> > + if (n < 8)
> > + return fregs->regs[n];
>
> Where does this '8' come from?
Because in AAPCS64 the arguments are in x0 to x7, as mentioned in the commit
message:
| Per AAPCS64, all function call argument and return values are held in
| the following GPRs:
|
| * X0 - X7 : parameter / result registers
| * X8 : indirect result location register
| * SP : stack pointer (AKA SP)
The 'indirect result location register' would be used when returning large
structures, and isn't a function argument as such.
The logic is the same as in regs_get_kernel_argument() for pt_regs.
I can add a comment here to explain that, if that would help?
The rest of the registers are as described in the commit message (and I now
spot a typo that I'll go fix):
| Additionally, ad function call boundaries, the following GPRs hold
| context/return information:
|
| * X29 : frame pointer (AKA FP)
| * X30 : link register (AKA LR)
|
| ... and for ftrace we need to capture the instrumented address:
|
| * PC : program counter
|
| No other GPRs are relevant, as none of the other arguments hold
| parameters or return values:
|
| * X9 - X17 : temporaries, may be clobbered
| * X18 : shadow call stack pointer (or temorary)
| * X19 - X28 : callee saved
Thanks,
Mark.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-17 10:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-03 17:05 [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64/ftrace: move to DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS Mark Rutland
2022-11-03 17:05 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] ftrace: pass fregs to arch_ftrace_set_direct_caller() Mark Rutland
2022-11-03 17:05 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] ftrace: rename ftrace_instruction_pointer_set() -> ftrace_regs_set_instruction_pointer() Mark Rutland
2022-11-03 17:05 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] ftrace: abstract DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS accesses Mark Rutland
2022-11-03 17:05 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] ftrace: arm64: move from REGS to ARGS Mark Rutland
2022-11-15 11:27 ` Will Deacon
2022-11-17 10:52 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2022-11-18 12:31 ` Will Deacon
2022-11-18 13:57 ` Mark Rutland
2022-11-18 14:09 ` Will Deacon
2022-11-15 15:01 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64/ftrace: move to DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS Steven Rostedt
2022-11-15 15:48 ` Mark Rutland
2022-11-18 0:04 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2022-11-18 19:40 ` Will Deacon
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=Y3YRqvfYOP+RBk8r@FVFF77S0Q05N \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=revest@chromium.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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