[PATCH 1/3] powerpc: Don't use local named register variable in current_thread_info

[Anton Blanchard]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:11:54 +1100
Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman.id.au> wrote:

> On Wed, 2014-12-17 at 02:16 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > On 31.10.14 04:47, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> > > LLVM doesn't support local named register variables and is
> > > unlikely to. current_thread_info is using one, fix it by moving
> > > it out and calling it __current_r1().
> > > 
> > > I gave it a bit of an obscure name because we don't want anyone
> > > else using it - they should use current_stack_pointer(). This
> > > specific case is performance critical and we can't afford to call
> > > a function to get it. Furthermore it isn't important to know
> > > exactly where in the stack we are since we mask the lower bits.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton at samba.org>
> > 
> > Git bisect managed to point me to this commit as the offender for
> > OOPSes on e5500 and e6500 (and maybe the G4 as well, not sure).
> > 
> > Doing a git revert of this commit on top of linus/master makes
> > things work fine for me again.
> > 
> > 
> > Alex
> > 
> > Oops: Kernel access of bad area, sig: 11 [#2]
> > SMP NR_CPUS=16 CoreNet Generic
> > Modules linked in:
> > CPU: 1 PID: 339 Comm: kworker/1:1 Tainted: G      D
> > 3.18.0-09423-g988adfd #1
> > Workqueue: rpciod .rpc_async_schedule
> > task: c0000001f6397500 ti: c0000001f6638000 task.ti:
> > c0000001f6638000 NIP: c0000000004817a4 LR: c0000000004817a4 CTR:
> > 0000000000000000 REGS: c0000001f663b0e0 TRAP: 0300   Tainted:
> > G      D (3.18.0-09423-g988adfd)
> > MSR: 0000000080029000 <CE,EE,ME>  CR: 24ad2e42  XER: 00000000
> > DEAR: 202031303438355f ESR: 0000000000000000 SOFTE: 1
>       = r9 + 40
> 
> > GPR00: c0000000004817a4 c0000001f663b360 c000000000988028
> > 000000007f24333d GPR04: 5ff5738c1f2ebfb1 0000000000000000
> > 0000000000000000 00000000000008f8 GPR08: c000000000480ae8
> > 2020313034383537 36204b4220617320 6469726563740a31 GPR12:
> > 3937302d30312d30 c00000000fff8780 c00000000007f988 c0000001f64c1600
> 
> GPRs 9-12 say: " 1048576 KB as direct\n1970-01-0"
> 
> Which is rarely a good sign :)
> 
> Looks like it might be part of your dmesg from setup_page_sizes().
> 
> > GPR16: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> > 00000000000005dc GPR20: c0000000009b8028 c00000007e034200
> > 0000000000000548 c000000000000000 GPR24: c0000001f663b4b0
> > 00000000b225831e 0000000000000000 0000000000000080 GPR28:
> > 0000000000000548 00000000000008f8 0000000000000548 0000000000000094
> > NIP [c0000000004817a4] .__skb_checksum+0x194/0x378 LR
> > [c0000000004817a4] .__skb_checksum+0x194/0x378 Call Trace:
> > [c0000001f663b360] [c0000000004817a4] .__skb_checksum+0x194/0x378
> > (unreliable)
> > [c0000001f663b440] [c0000000004819b4] .skb_checksum+0x2c/0x3c
> > [c0000001f663b4c0] [c0000000004fd0a8] .udp4_hwcsum+0xa8/0x16c
> > [c0000001f663b560] [c0000000004fd440] .udp_send_skb+0x2d4/0x370
> > [c0000001f663b600]
> > [c0000000004fd51c] .udp_push_pending_frames+0x40/0x94
> > [c0000001f663b680] [c0000000004fec08] .udp_sendpage+0x150/0x1b4
> > [c0000001f663b770] [c00000000050ae54] .inet_sendpage+0xa0/0x120
> > [c0000001f663b810] [c00000000059c8cc] .xs_sendpages+0x2d0/0x30c
> > [c0000001f663b8d0]
> > [c00000000059cae4] .xs_udp_send_request+0x58/0x120
> > [c0000001f663b970] [c000000000598f04] .xprt_transmit+0x80/0x36c
> > [c0000001f663ba20] [c0000000005942d8] .call_transmit+0x19c/0x254
> > [c0000001f663bab0] [c00000000059ff64] .__rpc_execute+0xbc/0x3c0
> > [c0000001f663bb90] [c0000000000797f8] .process_one_work+0x1c0/0x474
> > [c0000001f663bc40] [c00000000007a518] .worker_thread+0x17c/0x54c
> > [c0000001f663bd30] [c00000000007fa8c] .kthread+0x104/0x124
> > [c0000001f663be30]
> > [c000000000000884] .ret_from_kernel_thread+0x58/0xd4 Instruction
> > dump: 7d1f3a14 7c6a1850 e9580000 7fbd4050 786334e4 e90a0000
> > 7c63ba14 f8490028 7c63ea14 7d0903a6 e84a0008 4e800421 <e8490028>
> > 7c641b78 78270464 e9580008
> 
> Which is:
> 
> add      r8, r31, r7
> subf     r3, r10, r3
> ld      r10, 0(r24)
> subf    r29, r29, r8
> rldicr   r3, r3, 6, 51
> ld       r8, 0(r10)
> add      r3, r3, r23
> std      r2, 40(r9)
> add      r3, r3, r29
> mtctr    r8
> ld       r2, 8(r10)
> bctrl
> ld       r2, 40(r9)	<---
> mr       r4, r3
> rldicr   r7, r1, 0, 49
> ld      r10, 8(r24)
> 
> 
> Which looks a bit odd. I'd expect us to be saving/restoring r2 to the
> stack, though maybe r9 was pointing at the stack?

Nice catch! This looks like a compiler bug.

> Looking at your vmlinux.broken I don't see the same code gen.

For whatever reason we ended up with r10 this time:

7c 2a 0b 78     mr      r10,r1
...
f8 4a 00 28     std     r2,40(r10)
7c 63 ba 14     add     r3,r3,r23
7c e9 03 a6     mtctr   r7
7c 63 ea 14     add     r3,r3,r29
38 a0 00 00     li      r5,0
e8 48 00 08     ld      r2,8(r8)
4e 80 04 21     bctrl
e8 4a 00 28     ld      r2,40(r10)

The indirect function call is allowed to clobber r10, gcc is doing
something very wrong here.

Anton