Hi,
Sorry to bother again, I just finished the test with your patches on
mine patch set.
On 2022/9/21 17:53, Guo Ren wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 4:34 PM Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
On 2022/9/18 23:52, guoren@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
index 5f49517cd3a2..426529b84db0 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
@@ -332,6 +332,33 @@ ENTRY(ret_from_kernel_thread)
tail syscall_exit_to_user_mode
ENDPROC(ret_from_kernel_thread)
+#ifdef CONFIG_IRQ_STACKS
+ENTRY(call_on_stack)
+ /* Create a frame record to save our ra and fp */
+ addi sp, sp, -RISCV_SZPTR
+ REG_S ra, (sp)
+ addi sp, sp, -RISCV_SZPTR
+ REG_S fp, (sp)
+
+ /* Save sp in fp */
+ move fp, sp
+
Considering that s0 points to previous sp normally, I think here we
should have 'addi fp, sp, 2*RISCV_SZPTR'.
An example below:
addi sp, sp, -16
sd ra, 8(sp)
sd s0, 0(sp)
addi s0, sp, 16 <- s0 is set to previous sp
...
ld ra,8(sp)
ld s0,0(sp)
addi sp,sp,16
So maybe it's better to save the stack frame as below:
addi sp, sp, -2*RISCV_SZPTR
REG_S ra, RISCV_SZPTR(sp)
REG_S s0, (sp)
/* Save sp in fp */
addi s0, sp, 2*RISCV_SZPTR
...
/*
* Restore sp from prev fp, and fp, ra from the frame
*/
addi sp, s0, -2*RISCV_SZPTR
REG_L ra, RISCV_SZPTR(sp)
REG_L s0, (sp)
addi sp, sp, 2*RISCV_SZPTR
Anyway, lets set fp as sp + 2 * RISCV_SZPTR, so that unwinder can
connect two stacks same as normal function.
I tested this with my patch and the unwinder works properly.
Thanks for your time!
Best,
Chen
+ /* Move to the new stack and call the function there */
+ li a3, IRQ_STACK_SIZE
+ add sp, a1, a3
+ jalr a2
+
+ /*
+ * Restore sp from prev fp, and fp, ra from the frame
+ */
+ move sp, fp
+ REG_L fp, (sp)
+ addi sp, sp, RISCV_SZPTR
+ REG_L ra, (sp)
+ addi sp, sp, RISCV_SZPTR
+ ret
+ENDPROC(call_on_stack)
+#endif
Seems my compiler (riscv64-linux-gnu-gcc 8.4.0, cross compiling from
x86) cannot recognize the register `fp`.
The whole entry.S uses s0 instead of fp, so I approve of your advice. Thx.
After I changed it to `s0` this can pass compiling.
Seems there is nowhere else using `fp`, can this just using `s0` instead?
Best,
Chen