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

[Hari Bathini]

On 04/01/2016 04:07 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 12:23 +0530, Hari Bathini wrote:
>> 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.
> It does make a difference, due to alignment. Prior to your patch we have ~24
> bytes free.

Hi Michael,

Hmmm.. I thought ~24 bytes was not such a difference but with the scenario
you mentioned it does sound critical. Actually, this patch came into being
for want of another 8~12 bytes. So, I should have known better about
space constraint.

>
>> 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.
> That's true, but that sort of change is unlikely to backport well. And we need
> to backport this fix to everything.

That does sound like a maintainer's nightmare.

> But if you can get that to work I'll consider it. I tried quickly but couldn't
> get it working, due to problems with the feature else sections being too far
> away from.

Same case. May need sometime to get that right.
Also, exploring holes between __start_interrupts & __end_interrupts.
Will try and get back on this soon.
If none of this works, we have v2 anyway.

Thanks
Hari