Subject: [PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: adjust el0_sync so that a function can be called

From: [email-masked] (Larry Bassel)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 15:35:20 -0700

On 22 May 14 16:23, Christopher Covington wrote:
> Hi Larry,
> 
> On 05/22/2014 03:27 PM, Larry Bassel wrote:
> > To implement the context tracker properly on arm64,
> > a function call needs to be made after debugging and
> > interrupts are turned on, but before the lr is changed
> > to point to ret_to_user(). If the function call
> > is made after the lr is changed the function will not
> > return to the correct place.
> > 
> > For similar reasons, defer the setting of x0 so that
> > it doesn't need to be saved around the function call
> > (save far_el1 in x26 temporarily instead).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Larry Bassel <[email-masked]>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> > index e8b23a3..20b336e 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> > @@ -354,7 +354,6 @@ el0_sync:
> >  	lsr	x24, x25, #ESR_EL1_EC_SHIFT	// exception class
> >  	cmp	x24, #ESR_EL1_EC_SVC64		// SVC in 64-bit state
> >  	b.eq	el0_svc
> > -	adr	lr, ret_to_user
> >  	cmp	x24, #ESR_EL1_EC_DABT_EL0	// data abort in EL0
> >  	b.eq	el0_da
> >  	cmp	x24, #ESR_EL1_EC_IABT_EL0	// instruction abort in EL0
> > @@ -383,7 +382,6 @@ el0_sync_compat:
> >  	lsr	x24, x25, #ESR_EL1_EC_SHIFT	// exception class
> >  	cmp	x24, #ESR_EL1_EC_SVC32		// SVC in 32-bit state
> >  	b.eq	el0_svc_compat
> > -	adr	lr, ret_to_user
> >  	cmp	x24, #ESR_EL1_EC_DABT_EL0	// data abort in EL0
> >  	b.eq	el0_da
> >  	cmp	x24, #ESR_EL1_EC_IABT_EL0	// instruction abort in EL0
> > @@ -426,22 +424,26 @@ el0_da:
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Data abort handling
> >  	 */
> > -	mrs	x0, far_el1
> > -	bic	x0, x0, #(0xff << 56)
> > +	mrs	x26, far_el1
> >  	// enable interrupts before calling the main handler
> >  	enable_dbg_and_irq
> > +	mov	x0, x26
> > +	bic	x0, x0, #(0xff << 56)
> 
> Nit: I believe you can bit clear with x26 as the source register and omit the
> move instruction.

Is that really an improvement (assuming it works)? Are we saving
any cycles here? If so, does it matter? It is easy to see what
the move instruction is doing.

> 
> Regards,
> Christopher
> 
> -- 
> Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by the Linux Foundation.

Larry