From: Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@android.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>,
Stefan Traby <stefan@hello-penguin.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: write_sysreg asm illegal for aarch32
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 13:32:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <caa10a1c-b834-3a08-b425-ba8d2ca7a9b0@android.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ba7f7072-88e5-92ee-f573-4282b6a082d4@android.com>
On 11/01/2017 11:16 AM, Mark Salyzyn wrote:
> On 11/01/2017 10:56 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 10:49:00AM -0700, Mark Salyzyn wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2017 10:14 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>> On 01/11/17 16:58, Mark Salyzyn wrote:
>>>>> Cross compiling to aarch32 (for vdso32) using clang correctly
>>>>> identifies that (the unused) write_sysreg inline asm directive is
>>>>> illegal in that architectural context:
>>>>>
>>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h: error: invalid input
>>>>> constraint 'rZ' in asm
>>>>> write_sysreg(cntkctl, cntkctl_el1);
>>>>> ^
>>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h: note: expanded from macro
>>>>> 'write_sysreg'
>>>>> : : "rZ" (__val));
>>>>> ^
>>>>>
>>>>> GCC normally checks for correctness everywhere. But uniquely for
>>>>> unused asm, will optimize out and suppress the error report.
>>>> It sounds more like some paths are wrong in the compat vDSO build if
>>>> it's pulling in this header in the first place - nothing in this
>>>> file is
>>>> relevant to AArch32.
>>>>
>>>> Robin.
>>>>
>>> And yet, when you CROSS_COMPILE_ARM32 a vdso32, you have no choice
>>> but to
>>> utilize the arm64 headers since they contain all the relevant kernel
>>> structures and environment.
>> This itself is the underlying issue.
>>
>> When building the compat VDSO, we must ensure that we only include
>> headers that make sense for 32-bit arm.
>>
>> If the build system can't do that today, we should rework it so that it
>> can. Anything else cannot be a complete fix.
>>
>>> asm/arch_timer.h (remember we are using arm instructions to access
>>> arch64
>>> timers)
>>>
>>> linux/time.h (really only for struct timespec())
>>>
>>> asm/processor.h (eg: cpu_relax())
>>>
>>> pull in a _lot_ of architectural related cruft that always somehow
>>> picks up
>>> asm/sysreg.h somewhere in the multitude of includes to fulfill some
>>> unused
>>> inline's needs.
>> ... these are just the particular symptoms this problem results in
>> today.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>
> Ok, will attack it and see just how bad the scale is...
>
> . . .
>
> -- Mark
>
>
Scoped, not as bad as I thought, but there is some open-coded evilness
to fix:
1) linux/jiffies.h can not be included, replace with open coding:
#include <asm/param.h>
#define TICK_NSEC TICK_NSEC ((NSEC_PER_SEC+HZ/2)/HZ)
2) linux/hrtimer.h can not be included, replace with open coding (must
have above to work):
#define LOW_RES_NSEC TICK_NSEC
#ifdef CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS
# define HIGH_RES_NSEC 1
# define MONOTONIC_RES_NSEC HIGH_RES_NSEC
#else
# define MONOTONIC_RES_NSEC LOW_RES_NSEC
#endif
3) asm/processor.h can not be included, replace with open coding:
static inline void cpu_relax(void)
{
asm volatile("yield" ::: "memory");
}
4) linux/time.h can not be included, replace with open coding:
#include <linux/compiler.h>
#include <linux/math64.h>
#include <uapi/linux/time.h>
#define NSEC_PER_SEC 1000000000L
static __always_inline void timespec_add_ns(struct timespec *a, u64 ns)
{
a->tv_sec += __iter_div_u64_rem(a->tv_nsec + ns, NSEC_PER_SEC, &ns);
a->tv_nsec = ns;
}
I am at a loss to determine if there is an acceptable way to split off
the open-coding. For instance asm-generic/processor.h (for cpu_relax()),
uapi/linux/hrtimer.h and uapi/linux/jiffies.h for the #defines (uapi is
a bad choice, flipping coin?). The time open-coding is probably OK given
that they have not changed since near the limits of git history.
-- Mark
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-01 20:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-01 16:58 [PATCH] arm64: write_sysreg asm illegal for aarch32 Mark Salyzyn
2017-11-01 17:14 ` Robin Murphy
2017-11-01 17:49 ` Mark Salyzyn
2017-11-01 17:56 ` Mark Rutland
2017-11-01 18:16 ` Mark Salyzyn
2017-11-01 20:32 ` Mark Salyzyn [this message]
2017-11-02 10:08 ` Mark Rutland
2017-11-02 10:05 ` Marc Zyngier
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=caa10a1c-b834-3a08-b425-ba8d2ca7a9b0@android.com \
--to=salyzyn@android.com \
--cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=cdall@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=stefan@hello-penguin.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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