Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:01:02 +0100 From: Rafal Jaworowski <raj@semihalf.com> To: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@freebsd.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 135517 for review Message-ID: <47B7793E.2020803@semihalf.com> In-Reply-To: <19353798-6A4C-4360-B08B-51D0D2719B28@mac.com> References: <200802162141.m1GLfgkj048217@repoman.freebsd.org> <47B75EB3.2020001@semihalf.com> <504560A3-EABB-4896-8B3E-C7FC89F31EFB@mac.com> <47B76A8E.5060607@semihalf.com> <EDF429F2-E803-4FA7-A387-3A53D15A21F2@mac.com> <47B76FDA.7070008@semihalf.com> <19353798-6A4C-4360-B08B-51D0D2719B28@mac.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Save U-Boot's registers at startup and restore them when >>>>>>> performing a syscall. This way we don't have to compile >>>>>>> code specially to avoid using those registers. Otherwise >>>>>>> we have to encode knowledge of those registers in at least >>>>>>> 4 makefiles and introduce a build knob to enable it all. >>>>>>> This does not allow us to build everything with a single >>>>>>> build world. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Marcel, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not quite sure this is sufficient... I already had a similar >>>>>> save/restore >>>>>> in place, but there is some general problem with U-Boot that leads to >>>>>> hangs >>>>>> (experienced): >>>>> >>>>> Interesting, I didn't see any such problems with 1.3.2-rc1. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Chances are it might not surface, depending on the regs usage pattern, >>>> compiler etc., for example a -O0 build would usually hide this issue, >>>> but in >>>> principle those regs are not exception/interrupt safe. >>> >>> Agreed. I didn't see it at -O2, BTW. >>> >> >> When I was looking at this it also did not always pop up (with -O2 too), >> although typically when loader(8) was executed and left idle for some >> time it >> would hang sooner or later. >> >>> We can disable interrupts when not running in U-Boot, right? >>> The impact should be marginal... >>> >> >> Yes, this could be worked around like this, but with degraded >> functionality: >> all timer-related calls from the API would not make sense, and things >> like >> autoboot count down will not work. Even worse, the [polled] networking >> might >> not work at all if decrementer was shut, as we'd not be able to time >> out while >> waiting on the packet, status registers' change and so on. I think >> this issue >> needs some further investigation and proper resolution. > > We always call into U-Boot when we're waiting, so interrupts should be > enabled when it's important. This is the case when we wait for time to > pass, a key press or a network packet. In all those cases we shouldn't > be running for extensive amounts of time with interrupts disabled, so > we shouldn't lose too much precision, keys or packets. > Well, the point is we would need to run with interrupts disabled during all loader's code paths, so that interrups could be allowed only for the duration of the syscall; not sure how this would serve. Anyway, let me know your findings. > I'll play with this and see if that statement is true... > >From the other end: I'll take a look at U-Boot exceptions handlers macros for the prologue/epilogue and try to fix this down there. It shouldn't be difficult, but propagating the changes to their main line code will take time... Rafalhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47B7793E.2020803>