C vdso
Christophe Leroy
christophe.leroy at csgroup.eu
Wed Nov 25 20:21:34 AEDT 2020
Quoting Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman.id.au>:
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy at csgroup.eu> writes:
>> Le 03/11/2020 à 19:13, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
>>> Le 23/10/2020 à 15:24, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>>>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy at csgroup.eu> writes:
>>>>> Le 24/09/2020 à 15:17, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
>>>>>> Le 17/09/2020 à 14:33, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>>>>>>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy at csgroup.eu> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the status with the generic C vdso merge ?
>>>>>>>> In some mail, you mentionned having difficulties getting it working on
>>>>>>>> ppc64, any progress ? What's the problem ? Can I help ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah sorry I was hoping to get time to work on it but haven't been able
>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's causing crashes on ppc64 ie. big endian.
>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you tell what defconfig you are using ? I have been able to
>>>>>> setup a full glibc PPC64 cross
>>>>>> compilation chain and been able to test it under QEMU with
>>>>>> success, using Nathan's vdsotest tool.
>>>>>
>>>>> What config are you using ?
>>>>
>>>> ppc64_defconfig + guest.config
>>>>
>>>> Or pseries_defconfig.
>>>>
>>>> I'm using Ubuntu GCC 9.3.0 mostly, but it happens with other
>>>> toolchains too.
>>>>
>>>> At a minimum we're seeing relocations in the output, which is a problem:
>>>>
>>>> $ readelf -r build\~/arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso64/vdso64.so
>>>> Relocation section '.rela.dyn' at offset 0x12a8 contains 8 entries:
>>>> Offset Info Type Sym. Value
>>>> Sym. Name + Addend
>>>> 000000001368 000000000016 R_PPC64_RELATIVE 7c0
>>>> 000000001370 000000000016 R_PPC64_RELATIVE 9300
>>>> 000000001380 000000000016 R_PPC64_RELATIVE 970
>>>> 000000001388 000000000016 R_PPC64_RELATIVE 9300
>>>> 000000001398 000000000016 R_PPC64_RELATIVE a90
>>>> 0000000013a0 000000000016 R_PPC64_RELATIVE 9300
>>>> 0000000013b0 000000000016 R_PPC64_RELATIVE b20
>>>> 0000000013b8 000000000016 R_PPC64_RELATIVE 9300
>>>
>>> Looks like it's due to the OPD and relation between the function()
>>> and .function()
>>>
>>> By using DOTSYM() in the 'bl' call, that's directly the dot
>>> function which is called and the OPD is
>>> not used anymore, it can get dropped.
>>>
>>> Now I get .rela.dyn full of 0, don't know if we should drop it explicitely.
>>
>> What is the status now with latest version of CVDSO ? I saw you had
>> it in next-test for some time,
>> it is not there anymore today.
>
> Still having some trouble with the compat VDSO.
>
> eg:
>
> $ ./vdsotest clock-gettime-monotonic verify
> timestamp obtained from kernel predates timestamp
> previously obtained from libc/vDSO:
> [1346, 821441653] (vDSO)
> [570, 769440040] (kernel)
>
>
> And similar for all clocks except the coarse ones.
>
Ok, I managed to get the same with QEMU. Looking at the binary, I only
see an mftb instead of the mftbu/mftb/mftbu triplet.
Fix below. Can you carry it, or do you prefer a full patch from me ?
The easiest would be either to squash it into [v13,4/8]
("powerpc/time: Move timebase functions into new asm/timebase.h"), or
to add it between patch 4 and 5 ?
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/reg.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/reg.h
index f877a576b338..c3473eb031a3 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/reg.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/reg.h
@@ -1419,7 +1419,7 @@ static inline void msr_check_and_clear(unsigned
long bits)
__msr_check_and_clear(bits);
}
-#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_CELL) || defined(CONFIG_E500)
+#if defined(__powerpc64__) && (defined(CONFIG_PPC_CELL) ||
defined(CONFIG_E500))
#define mftb() ({unsigned long rval; \
asm volatile( \
"90: mfspr %0, %2;\n" \
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/timebase.h
b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/timebase.h
index a8eae3adaa91..7b372976f5a5 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/timebase.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/timebase.h
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ static inline u64 get_tb(void)
{
unsigned int tbhi, tblo, tbhi2;
- if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64))
+ if (IS_BUILTIN(__powerpc64__))
return mftb();
do {
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list