On 04/01/2016 11:44 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Wed, 2016-03-30 at 23:49 +0530, Hari Bathini wrote:
Some of the interrupt vectors on 64-bit POWER server processors are
only 32 bytes long (8 instructions), which is not enough for the full
...
Let us fix this undependable code path by moving these OOL handlers below
__end_interrupts marker to make sure we also copy these handlers to real
address 0x100 when running a relocatable kernel. Because the interrupt
vectors branching to these OOL handlers are not long enough to use
LOAD_HANDLER() for branching as discussed above.
...
changes from v2:
2. Move the OOL handlers before __end_interrupts marker instead of moving the
__end_interrupts marker
3. Leave __end_handlers marker as is.
Hi Hari,
Thanks for trying this. In the end I've decided it's not a good option.
If you build an allmodconfig, and turn on CONFIG_RELOCATABLE, and then look at
the disassembly, you see this:
c000000000006ffc: 48 00 29 04 b c000000000009900
<.ret_from_except>
c000000000007000 <__end_handlers>:
At 0x7000 we have the FWNMI area, which is fixed and can't move. As you see
above we end up with only 4 bytes of space between the end of the handlers and
the FWNMI area.
So any tiny change that adds two more instructions prior to 0x7000 will then
fail to build.
Hi Michael,
I agree. But the OOL handlers that are moved up in v3 were below
0x7000 earlier as well and moving them below __end_interrupts marker
shouldn't make any difference in terms of space consumption at least in
comparison between v2 & v3. So, I guess picking either v2 or v3
doesn't change this for better.
Also, there is code between __end_interrupts and __end_handlers
that is not location dependent as long as it is within 64K (0x10000)
that can be moved above 0x8000, if need be.
For these reasons, I feel v3 is better going forward as it keeps
__start_interrupts to __end_interrupts code compact and
leaves alone the code that doesn't need to be copied to real 0.
Am I missing something here?
Thanks
Hari
None of that's your fault, it's just the nature of the code in there, it's very
space constrained.
For now I'll take your v2, but I'll edit the comment and drop the removal of
__end_handlers.
cheers
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
