Hi Mark, Will, Ping on this series. Can you please check? I
Regards, Jean On 25 March 2014 16:23, Jean Pihet <jean.pi...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On 21 March 2014 16:11, Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> wrote: >> Hi Jean, >> >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote: >>> Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going >>> to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches. >>> >>> It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump >>> buffer and populates it with current registers values, as >>> expected by the perf built-in unwinding test. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pi...@linaro.org> >>> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.cap...@linaro.org> >>> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjash...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> >>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> >>> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org> >>> Cc: Paul Mackerras <pau...@samba.org> >>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijls...@chello.nl> >>> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@ghostprotocols.net> >>> Cc: David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> >>> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile | 1 + >>> tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h | 2 ++ >>> tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S | 39 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644 >>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o >>> endif >>> ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND >>> LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o >>> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o >>> endif >>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h >>> b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h >>> index 2359546..1e052f1 100644 >>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h >>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h >>> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ >>> #define PERF_REG_IP PERF_REG_ARM64_PC >>> #define PERF_REG_SP PERF_REG_ARM64_SP >>> >>> +void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs); >>> + >>> static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id) >>> { >>> switch (id) { >>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S >>> b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000..92ab968 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S >>> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ >>> +#include <linux/linkage.h> >>> + >>> +/* >>> + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs); >>> + * >>> + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers >>> values, >>> + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them: >>> + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function >>> + * is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR, >> >> Is it guaranteed that this function is always invoked with a branch with >> link instruction, or is that just what current compiler versions are >> doing? I couldn't see where we would get that guarantee from. > The current compiler implements the call as a bl instruction. > >> If it is called with a branch with link, then the LR value will be the >> PC at call time + 4, rather than just the exact PC at call time. If not >> then we don't have a guaranteed relationship between the PC at call time >> and the current LR value. >> >> If the only place that perf_regs_load is used is a single test which >> doesn't care about the precise PC at the time of the call, then it's >> probably OK to use the LR value, but we should be careful to document >> what the faked-up PC actually is and how we expect it to be used. > The code is only used by an unwinding test. The unwinding code > resolves the function name from an address range found in the dwarf > information so in principle it is ok to use the PC/LR at the time of > the call to a function. > > Is the comment above OK or do you want an update of the code as well? > >> >>> + * - the current SP (not touched by this function), >>> + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the >>> + * value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it >>> will >>> + * be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries. >>> + */ >>> + >>> +.text >>> +.type perf_regs_load,%function >>> +ENTRY(perf_regs_load) >>> + stp x0, x1, [x0], #16 // store x0..x29 >>> + stp x2, x3, [x0], #16 >>> + stp x4, x5, [x0], #16 >>> + stp x6, x7, [x0], #16 >>> + stp x8, x9, [x0], #16 >>> + stp x10, x11, [x0], #16 >>> + stp x12, x13, [x0], #16 >>> + stp x14, x15, [x0], #16 >>> + stp x16, x17, [x0], #16 >>> + stp x18, x19, [x0], #16 >>> + stp x20, x21, [x0], #16 >>> + stp x22, x23, [x0], #16 >>> + stp x24, x25, [x0], #16 >>> + stp x26, x27, [x0], #16 >>> + stp x28, x29, [x0], #16 >>> + mov x1, sp >>> + stp x30, x1, [x0], #16 // store lr and sp >>> + str x30, [x0] // store pc as lr in order to skip the call >>> + // to this function >> >> It might be better to word this a "store the lr in place of the pc". To >> me at least the current wording implies the opposite of what the code >> seems to be doing. > Ok the last comment can be updated. > > Thanks! > Jean > >> >> Cheers, >> Mark. >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/