On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:12 PM, David Daney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 01/14/2013 01:10 PM, Alan Cooper wrote:
>> I already tried using "adddiu sp, sp, 8" and it caused the kernel to
>> randomly crash. After many hours of debugging the reason occurred to
>> me while in bed in the middle of the night. The problem is that if we
>> get an interrupt between the add 8 and the add -8 instructions, we
>> trash the existing stack.
>> The problem with the 2 nop approach is that there are a series of
>> subroutines used to write each nop and these nested subroutines are
> This seems like a bug. The low-level code used to do code patching probably
> should be CFLAGS_REMOVE_file.o = -pg
While tracing mcount cannot be done because it's recursive, allowing
tracing of the code to enable/disable the call to mcount can be done
and seems useful. Also, fixing the 2 nop solution this way will still
not allow us to stop using stop_machine() which is hugely disruptive
to a running system. Remember that when tracing is enabled and
disabled we end up modifying 20 to 30 thousand functions. Moving this
functionality out of stop_machine() seems like a big benefit.
>> This means on the second call to these subroutines they
>> execute with only one nop and crash. I could write some new code
>> that wrote the 2 nops at once, but (now that I understand
>> "stop_machine") with the branch likely solution we should be able to
>> stop using "stop_machine" when we write nops to the 20-30 thousand
>> Linux functions. It looks like other platforms have stopped using
> I don't particularly object to the 'branch likely solution', but I think the
> failures of the other approaches indicates underlying bugs in the tracing
> code. Those bugs should probably be fixed.
If a solution can be found that modifies a single 32bit instruction to
enable/disable tracing, I don't see any bugs in the underlying code.
Plus we can avoid using stop_machine().
> David Daney
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:01 PM, David Daney <email@example.com>
>>> On 01/11/2013 06:33 AM, Al Cooper wrote:
>>>> Function tracing is currently broken for all 32 bit MIPS platforms.
>>>> When tracing is enabled, the kernel immediately hangs on boot.
>>>> This is a result of commit b732d439cb43336cd6d7e804ecb2c81193ef63b0
>>>> that changes the kernel/trace/Kconfig file so that is no longer
>>>> forces FRAME_POINTER when FUNCTION_TRACING is enabled.
>>>> MIPS frame pointers are generally considered to be useless because
>>>> they cannot be used to unwind the stack. Unfortunately the MIPS
>>>> function tracing code has bugs that are masked by the use of frame
>>>> pointers. This commit fixes the bugs so that MIPS frame pointers do
>>>> not need to be enabled.
>>>> The bugs are a result of the odd calling sequence used to call the trace
>>>> routine. This calling sequence is inserted into every tracable function
>>>> when the tracing CONFIG option is enabled. This sequence is generated
>>>> for 32bit MIPS platforms by the compiler via the "-pg" flag.
>>>> Part of the sequence is "addiu sp,sp,-8" in the delay slot after every
>>>> call to the trace routine "_mcount" (some legacy thing where 2 arguments
>>>> used to be pushed on the stack). The _mcount routine is expected to
>>>> adjust the sp by +8 before returning.
>>>> One of the bugs is that when tracing is disabled for a function, the
>>>> "jalr _mcount" instruction is replaced with a nop, but the
>>>> "addiu sp,sp,-8" is still executed and the stack pointer is left
>>>> trashed. When frame pointers are enabled the problem is masked
>>>> because any access to the stack is done through the frame
>>>> pointer and the stack pointer is restored from the frame pointer when
>>>> the function returns. This patch uses a branch likely instruction
>>>> "bltzl zero, f1" instead of "nop" to disable the call because this
>>>> instruction will not execute the "addiu sp,sp,-8" instruction in
>>>> the delay slot. The other possible solution would be to nop out both
>>>> the jalr and the "addiu sp,sp,-8", but this would need to be interrupt
>>>> and SMP safe and would be much more intrusive.
>>> I thought all CPUs were in stop_machine() when the modifications were
>>> so that there is no issue with multi-word instruction patching.
>>> Am I wrong about this?
>>> So really I think you can do two NOP just as easily.
>>> The only reason I bring this up is that I am not sure all 32-bit CPUs
>>> implement the 'Likely' branch variants. Also there may be an affect on
>>> branch predictor.
>>> A third possibility would be to replace the JALR with 'ADDIU SP,SP,8'
>>> way the following adjustment would be canceled out. This would work well
>>> single-issue CPUs, but the instructions may not be able to dual-issue on
>>> multi issue machine due to data dependencies.
>>> David Daney
>>>> A few other bugs were fixed where the _mcount routine itself did not
>>>> always fix the sp on return.