[PATCH v3] ppc64/book3s: fix branching to out of line handlers in relocation kernel

[Hari Bathini]

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
>