From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753845Ab1AFQ67 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 6 Jan 2011 11:58:59 -0500
Received: from vpn.id2.novell.com ([195.33.99.129]:51846 "EHLO
	vpn.id2.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753667Ab1AFQ66 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;groupwise-JBeulich@novell.com:7:1>);
	Thu, 6 Jan 2011 11:58:58 -0500
Message-Id: <4D2602DE020000780002ACA3@vpn.id2.novell.com>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 8.0.1 
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:58:54 +0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
To: "Frederic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
        "Stephane Eranian" <eranian@google.com>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <acme@redhat.com>,
        "Soeren Sandmann Pedersen" <sandmann@redhat.com>,
        "LKML" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86: Fix rbp saving in pt_regs on irq
	 entry
References: <1294325513-14276-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <1294325513-14276-2-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <4D25EB4B020000780002ABF7@vpn.id2.novell.com>
 <20110106154536.GA2308@nowhere>
 <4D25F79F020000780002AC20@vpn.id2.novell.com>
 <20110106162236.GB2308@nowhere>
 <4D25FE5B020000780002AC50@vpn.id2.novell.com>
 <20110106165452.GC2308@nowhere>
In-Reply-To: <20110106165452.GC2308@nowhere>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

>>> On 06.01.11 at 17:54, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:39:39PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 06.01.11 at 17:22, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:10:55PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 06.01.11 at 16:45, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Before we had:
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > 	leaveq
>> >> > 
>> >> > 	CFI_RESTORE             rbp
>> >> > 	CFI_DEF_CFA_REGISTER    rsp
>> >> > 	CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET   -8
>> >> > 
>> >> > So CFI_RESTORE means rbp has now the value of the base frame of
>> >> > the calling frame (the base frame pointer of the interrupted proc) ?
>> >> 
>> >> No - all it means is that %rbp now has its original (caller or
>> >> interrupted procedure) value again (i.e. an unwinder should not
>> >> try to read it from the stack [or other previously recorded
>> >> location] anymore).
>> >> 
>> >> > And what follows means that rsp-8 points to the return address?
>> >> 
>> >> No - .cfi_def_cfa_register says which register serves as the frame
>> >> pointer, and .cfi_adjust_cfa_offset says to adjust the offset from
>> >> the frame pointer to the top [or bottom] of frame. At any time
>> >> 
>> >> 	CFA = cfa_register + cfa_offset
>> >> 
>> >> with CFA being what all locations on the stack are expressed
>> >> relative to.
>> > 
>> > Ok.
>> > 
>> > So here rsp points to pt_regs::r11
>> > 
>> > I don't understand why locations relative to the stack must be
>> > expressed here by taking rsp - 8 as a base.
>> 
>> Nothing says rsp-8. The annotations merely say to set the base
>> register to rsp and to *adjust* the offset by -8 (after all, that's
>> what the leaveq instruction does).
> 
> Ah! So CFA acts like a virtual frame base pointer right?

Correct.