From: linux@roeck-us•net (Guenter Roeck)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] sched, arm64: Fix the fallout of increasing the offset of 'thread_struct' within 'task_struct'
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 06:52:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55ACFD1C.8090907@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150720072043.GA7696@gmail.com>
On 07/20/2015 12:20 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Guenter <linux@roeck-us•net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 04:27:17PM -0700, Guenter wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Commit 0c8c0f03e3a2 ("x86/fpu, sched: Dynamically allocate 'struct fpu'")
>>> causes s390 builds in mainline to fail as follows.
>>>
>>> arch/s390/kernel/traps.c: Assembler messages:
>>> arch/s390/kernel/traps.c:262: Error: operand out of range
>>> (0x00000000000023e8 is not between 0x0000000000000000 and 0x0000000000000fff)
>>> arch/s390/kernel/traps.c:300: Error: operand out of range
>>> (0x00000000000023e8 is not between 0x0000000000000000 and 0x0000000000000fff)
>>>
>>
>> Also:
>>
>> arm64:allmodconfig:
>>
>> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S: Assembler messages:
>> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:588: Error: immediate out of range
>> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:597: Error: immediate out of range
>> make[1]: *** [arch/arm64/kernel/entry.o] Error 1
>>
>> I didn't bisect that one, but it looks like the cause is the same.
>
> Hm, it looks like the new, increased offset of 'thread_struct' within
> 'task_struct' goes over a limit that these instructions are able to support on
> arm64:
>
> arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c: DEFINE(THREAD_CPU_CONTEXT, offsetof(struct task_struct, thread.cpu_context));
> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S: add x8, x0, #THREAD_CPU_CONTEXT
> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S: add x8, x1, #THREAD_CPU_CONTEXT
>
> If there's no instruction that can support such offset sizes then I suspect the
> straightforward fix would be to pass in thread_struct instead - like the patch
> below. That's a tiny bit cleaner for type encapsulation anyway.
>
Olof submitted a different patch to solve the problem:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2036825.html
His patch is passing cpu_context instead of thread_context.
> Warning: it's not even build tested, but in case it works:
>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel•org>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
> ================
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h | 4 ++--
> arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
> index e4c893e54f01..890f84bb3b8c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
> @@ -152,8 +152,8 @@ static inline void cpu_relax(void)
> #define cpu_relax_lowlatency() cpu_relax()
>
> /* Thread switching */
> -extern struct task_struct *cpu_switch_to(struct task_struct *prev,
> - struct task_struct *next);
> +extern struct task_struct *cpu_switch_to(struct thread_struct *prev,
> + struct thread_struct *next);
>
> #define task_pt_regs(p) \
> ((struct pt_regs *)(THREAD_START_SP + task_stack_page(p)) - 1)
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> index c99701a34d7b..3785373c2369 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ int main(void)
> DEFINE(TI_TASK, offsetof(struct thread_info, task));
> DEFINE(TI_CPU, offsetof(struct thread_info, cpu));
> BLANK();
> - DEFINE(THREAD_CPU_CONTEXT, offsetof(struct task_struct, thread.cpu_context));
> + DEFINE(THREAD_CPU_CONTEXT, offsetof(struct thread_struct, cpu_context));
> BLANK();
> DEFINE(S_X0, offsetof(struct pt_regs, regs[0]));
> DEFINE(S_X1, offsetof(struct pt_regs, regs[1]));
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> index 223b093c9440..436e95bda1b2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> @@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct task_struct *prev,
> dsb(ish);
>
> /* the actual thread switch */
> - last = cpu_switch_to(prev, next);
> + last = cpu_switch_to(&prev.thread, &next.thread);
Doesn't compile.
arch/arm64/kernel/process.c: In function ?__switch_to?:
arch/arm64/kernel/process.c:328:28: error: request for member ?thread? in something not a structure or union
last = cpu_switch_to(&prev.thread, &next.thread);
^
arch/arm64/kernel/process.c:328:42: error: request for member ?thread? in something not a structure or union
last = cpu_switch_to(&prev.thread, &next.thread);
It would have to be
last = cpu_switch_to(&prev->thread, &next->thread);
which does compile, but fails to run in qemu.
Guenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-20 13:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20150718232717.GA3235@groeck-UX31A>
2015-07-18 23:34 ` Build error due to "x86/fpu, sched: Dynamically allocate 'struct fpu'" Guenter
2015-07-20 7:20 ` [PATCH] sched, arm64: Fix the fallout of increasing the offset of 'thread_struct' within 'task_struct' Ingo Molnar
2015-07-20 13:52 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2015-07-20 14:03 ` Catalin Marinas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55ACFD1C.8090907@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us$(echo .)net \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox