Hi, Sebastian On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 08:33, Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> On 06/06/2019 18:11, Maksim Kozlov wrote: > > Hello, Sebastian > > > > I think that this patch is necessary in two reasons. > > > > In general view, if we have a conditional branch, we want, obviously, to > > invoke two instruction siquences with different results. Without this > > patch we clear EF bit in conditional branch in any case and I think this > > is not that we want regardless if this causes error or not. > > The patch makes the code more clear, so I will check it in with a > modified commit message. However, I don't think it fixes a bug. I check > the instruction trace with SIS: > > *** BEGIN OF TEST SPCONTEXT 1 *** > *** TEST VERSION: 5.0.0.a38187051863cf4a423c4f00669c6786bc8ff60d > *** TEST STATE: EXPECTED-PASS > *** TEST BUILD: RTEMS_DEBUG RTEMS_NETWORKING RTEMS_POSIX_API > *** TEST TOOLS: 7.4.1 20190514 (RTEMS 5, RSB > e047d64adf806d37393eb12d02a7ce26633d2eba, Newlib 5c2a3661c) > Test configuration N N N... done > Test configuration N N F... sis> tra > 40380837 0200e434 a02c0015 andn %l0, %l5, %l0 > > Here the %l0 is superfluously modified, however, it has no effect, since > ... > > 40380837 0200e438 10800006 b 0x000000000200e450 > 40380838 0200e43c c021a004 clr [ %g6 + 4 ] > 40380842 0200e450 91d02009 ta 9 > 40380842 02000890 a1480000 rd %psr, %l0 > 40380845 02000894 2900803d sethi %hi(0x200f400), %l4 > 40380846 02000898 81c52080 jmp %l4 + 0x80 > 40380847 0200089c a6142f00 or %l0, 0xf00, %l3 > 40380849 0200f480 81880013 wr %l3, %psr > 40380850 0200f484 82142020 or %l0, 0x20, %g1 > 40380852 0200f488 01000000 nop > 40380852 0200f48c 81c48000 jmp %l2 > 40380853 0200f490 81cca004 rett %l2 + 4 > 40380855 0200e454 ee09a01c ldub [ %g6 + 0x1c ], %l7 > 40380857 0200e458 8095c000 tst %l7 > 40380859 0200e45c 12bfffe9 bne 0x000000000200e400 > 40380862 0200e460 92102000 clr %o1 > 40380862 0200e464 c021a014 clr [ %g6 + 0x14 ] > 40380863 0200e468 ea07a0a8 ld [ %fp + 0xa8 ], %l5 > 40380866 0200e46c 81856000 wr %l5, %y > 40380868 0200e470 e01fa060 ldd [ %fp + 0x60 ], %l0 > > ... here it is loaded from the stack. > > > > > More specific technical reason is that there is a real situation - I have > > debugging info and instruction trace (which was got with hardware > > debugging > > module DSU on LEON3) where I see that sometimes we return from interrupt > > with cleared PSR[EF] flag in the floating point task (I described this a > > bit in my first message) and this causes excessive lazy fp switch > > (previously I had system crash before fixing lazy fp switch syscall). > > > > Just now I can't give very detail description why and how this happens, > > but bellow I put part of LEON3 DSU trace for mentioned above situation > > > > This is part of code which I use to investigate problem which we talk > > about > > > > ... > > 4f102d8c: 95 a2 88 58 faddd %f10, %f24, %f10 > > 4f102d90: 80 a3 00 09 cmp %o4, %o1 > > 4f102d94: 91 a2 09 54 fmuld %f8, %f20, %f8 > > 4f102d98: 95 a0 05 4a fsqrtd %f10, %f10 > > 4f102d9c: d5 3b bf f8 std %f10, [ %sp + -8 ] > > 4f102da0: 01 00 00 00 nop > > 4f102da4: 91 a2 08 4a faddd %f8, %f10, %f8 > > 4f102da8: 95 a4 89 c8 fdivd %f18, %f8, %f10 > > 4f102dac: d5 3b bf f8 std %f10, [ %sp + -8 ] > > 4f102db0: 01 00 00 00 nop > > 4f102db4: d1 38 7f 70 std %f8, [ %g1 + -144 ] > > 4f102db8: d1 18 80 00 ldd [ %g2 ], %f8 <--- Interrupt > > 4f102dbc: 91 a2 08 ce fsubd %f8, %f14, %f8 > > 4f102dc0: 91 a2 09 4a fmuld %f8, %f10, %f8 > > 4f102dc4: d1 38 7f 58 std %f8, [ %g1 + -168 ] > > 4f102dc8: d1 18 a0 08 ldd [ %g2 + 8 ], %f8 > > 4f102dcc: 91 a2 08 cc fsubd %f8, %f12, %f8 > > ... > > > > Part of trace > > > > > > 463493523 4F06D6A0 restore [00000000] > > 463493524 4F06D6A4 ldd [%g1], %l0 [0000000C 4F57C348] > > %l0 is loaded here from the stack and ... > > > 463493526 4F06D6A8 ldd [%g1 + 0x8], %l2 [0406CE9C 0406CE78] > > 463493528 4F06D6AC ldd [%g1 + 0x10], %l4 [0406CE54 0406CE30] > > 463493530 4F06D6B0 ldd [%g1 + 0x18], %l6 [4F57C528 0406CE84] > > 463493533 4F06D6B4 ldd [%g1 + 0x20], %i0 [0406CF78 4F534BB0] > > 463493610 4F06D6B8 ldd [%g1 + 0x28], %i2 [0408CDC0 0406CE24] > > 463493612 4F06D6BC ldd [%g1 + 0x30], %i4 [00000001 00000003] > > 463493616 4F06D6C0 ldd [%g1 + 0x38], %fp [4F534B40 4F103868] > > 463493620 4F06D6C4 save [00000000] > > 463493622 4F06D6C8 mov %l0, %psr [F34000C6] <-- (1) > > ... here it is moved to the %psr. This is unrelated to the %l0 > modification in the patch. > > Yes, now I see that my situation is not so clear as I thought before. I listed instruction trace above just to show that there is a situation when we return from interrupt with cleared EF bit, and before your comments I thought that cause of that is superfluous `andn' instruction. Now I should investigate more carefully what happens between `andn %l0, %l5, %l0' and `mov %l0, %psr' instruction. And even more, now I'm not sure that this situation is abnormal. Thanks for your comments. -- Best regards, Maksim Kozlov > > 463493625 4F06D6CC nop [00000000] > > 463493702 4F06D6D0 nop [00000000] > > 463493703 4F06D6D4 nop [00000000] > > 463493717 4F06D6D8 ld [%g1 + 0x6C], %g1 [0408D148] > > 463493718 4F06D6DC jmp %l1 [4F06D6DC] > > 463493719 4F06D6E0 rett %l2 [4F102DC0] > > 463493722 4F102DBC fsubd %f8, %f14, %f8 [ TRAP ] <-- (2) > > 463493728 04000040 mov %psr, %l0 [F34000C6] > > 463493729 04000044 sethi %hi(0x4F06D800), %l4 [4F06D800] > > 463493730 04000048 jmp %l4 + 0x20 [04000048] > > 463493731 0400004C sethi %hi(0x1000), %l3 [00001000] > > > > > > Here (1) we see that restored PSR[EF] == 0 and directly after return from > > interrupt (2) we fall in lazy fp switch syscall > > > > To be honest, I cant say that I fully understand how _ISR_Handler > > procedure > > works, therefore your help would be very desirable. > > > > When I get more debugging information, I'll provide it. But it takes some > > time. > > -- > Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH > > Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany > Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 > Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 > E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > PGP : Public key available on request. > > Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG. > >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
