diff mbox

[GIT,PULL] pxa: features for next

Message ID CAMPhdO8SZjzE3f=rk1o8QSjaHGaySSHi6Ac9j4Mbm2s=0+A1pg@mail.gmail.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Eric Miao July 11, 2011, 10:17 a.m. UTC 
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:31:04PM +0800, Eric Miao wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>>> <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 03:47:27PM +0800, Eric Miao wrote:
>>> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>>> >> <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>> >> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 03:44:54PM +0800, Eric Miao wrote:
>>> >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>>> >> >> <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>> >> >> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 03:27:15PM +0800, Eric Miao wrote:
>>> >> >> >>       ARM: pxa: avoid accessing interrupt registers directly
>>> >> >> >>       ARM: pxa: introduce {icip,ichp}_handle_irq() to prepare MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > What happened about the __exception issue with asm_do_IRQ?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I just removed the __exception from the C handler.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > From asm_do_IRQ ?
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> No. From icip_handle_irq() and ichp_handle_irq(). Thought the ability to
>>> >> unwind asm_do_IRQ() is more important.
>>> >
>>> > Which means you didn't understand my objection when I reviewed your patch.
>>> >
>>> > The __exception annotation on a function causes this to happen:
>>> >
>>> > [<c002406c>] (asm_do_IRQ+0x6c/0x8c) from [<c0024b84>] (__irq_svc+0x44/0xcc)
>>> > Exception stack(0xc3897c78 to 0xc3897cc0)
>>> > 7c60:                                                       4022d320 4022e000
>>> > 7c80: 08000075 00001000 c32273c0 c03ce1c0 c2b49b78 4022d000 c2b420b4 00000001
>>> > 7ca0: 00000000 c3897cfc 00000000 c3897cc0 c00afc54 c002edd8 00000013 ffffffff
>>> >
>>> > Where that stack dump represents the pt_regs for the exception which
>>> > happened.  Any function found in while unwinding will cause this to
>>> > be printed.
>>> >
>>> > If you insert a C function between the IRQ assembly and asm_do_IRQ, the
>>> > dump you get from asm_do_IRQ will be the stack for your function, not
>>> > the pt_regs.  That makes the feature useless.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Sorry for my stupidity, but I think I still don't get it quite correctly.
>>> When both functions are prefixed with __exception_irq_entry, if
>>> unwind works correctly, both stacks will be dumped, how would
>>> the asm_do_IRQ will be stack for the function inserted?
>>
>> When __irq_svc - or any of the other exception handling assembly code -
>> calls the C code, the stack pointer will be pointing at the pt_regs
>> structure.
>>
>> All the entry points into C code from the exception handling code are
>> marked with __exception or __exception_irq_enter to indicate that they
>> are one of the functions which has pt_regs above them.
>>
>> Normally, when you've entered asm_do_IRQ() you will have this stack
>> layout (higher address towards top):
>>
>>        pt_regs
>>        asm_do_IRQ frame
>>
>> If you insert a C function between the exception assembly code and
>> asm_do_IRQ, you end up with this stack layout instead:
>>
>>        pt_regs
>>        your function frame
>>        asm_do_IRQ frame
>>
>> This means when we unwind, we'll get to asm_do_IRQ, and rather than
>> dumping out the pt_regs, we'll dump out your functions stack frame
>> instead, because that's what is above the asm_do_IRQ stack frame
>> rather than the expected pt_regs structure.
>>
>
> Ah now I see the problem. So it's actually in dump_backtrace_entry(),
> where the if (in_exception_text(where)) dump_mem(...) has this
> assumption.
>
> One way to solve this from my humble opinion is to mandate
> __exception for the C function (stack version) of handle_arch_irq,
> and when MULTI_IRQ defined, remove __exception from asm_do_IRQ(),
> so the assumption in dump_backtrace_entry() still holds true.
>
> Or do we have a gcc extension to tell the compiler a simple function
> doesn't need to use the stack?
>

Hi Russell,

How about something like below, it's not clever at all though:
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/irq.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/irq.h
index febe495..09a4856 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/irq.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/irq.h
@@ -25,6 +25,16 @@  extern void (*handle_arch_irq)(struct pt_regs *);
 #endif

 /*
+ * do not dump exception stack when MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is defined, as
+ * the stack will be dumped for function (*handle_arch_irq)().
+ */
+#ifdef CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
+#define __multi_irq_entry
+#else
+#define __multi_irq_entry	__exception_irq_entry
+#endif
+
+/*
  * This is for easy migration, but should be changed in the source
  */
 #define do_bad_IRQ(irq,desc)				\
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm/kernel/irq.c
index 83bbad0..7d32fd5 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/irq.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/irq.c
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@  int arch_show_interrupts(struct seq_file *p, int prec)
  * come via this function.  Instead, they should provide their
  * own 'handler'
  */
-asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry
+asmlinkage void __multi_irq_entry
 asm_do_IRQ(unsigned int irq, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
 	struct pt_regs *old_regs = set_irq_regs(regs);
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
index 2d079f4..d9cab3b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@  static struct irq_chip pxa_low_gpio_chip = {
 	.irq_set_type	= pxa_set_low_gpio_type,
 };

-asmlinkage void icip_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
+asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry icip_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
 	uint32_t icip, icmr, mask;

@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@  asmlinkage void icip_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	} while (1);
 }

-asmlinkage void ichp_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
+asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry ichp_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
 	uint32_t ichp;