On 23/10/15 10:11, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 10/22/2015 07:26 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
On 22/10/15 11:14, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
I also have my own version of livepatch support for arm64 using yet-coming
"-fprolog-add=N" option :)
As we discussed before, the main difference will be how we sho
On 10/22/2015 07:26 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
On 22/10/15 11:14, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 10/22/2015 06:07 PM, libin wrote:
在 2015/5/28 16:39, Maxim Kuvyrkov 写道:
Our proposal is that instead of adding -mfentry/-mnop-count/-mrecord-mcount
options to other architectures,
we should
implement a t
在 2015/10/22 18:16, Szabolcs Nagy 写道:
> On 22/10/15 10:23, libin wrote:
>> From: Jiangjiji
>> Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 15:29:57 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] * gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.opt: Add a new option.
>> * gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c: Add some new functions and Macros.
>> * gcc/config/aa
On 22/10/15 11:14, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 10/22/2015 06:07 PM, libin wrote:
在 2015/5/28 16:39, Maxim Kuvyrkov 写道:
Our proposal is that instead of adding -mfentry/-mnop-count/-mrecord-mcount
options to other architectures,
we should
implement a target-independent option -fprolog-pad=N, which
On 22/10/15 10:23, libin wrote:
From: Jiangjiji
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 15:29:57 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] * gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.opt: Add a new option.
* gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c: Add some new functions and Macros.
* gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.h: Modify PROFILE_HOOK and FUNCTION_PROFI
Li,
(added linux-arm-kernel to Cc.)
On 10/22/2015 06:07 PM, libin wrote:
在 2015/5/28 16:39, Maxim Kuvyrkov 写道:
Hi,
Akashi-san and I have been discussing required GCC changes to make kernel's
livepatching work for AArch64 and other
architectures. At the moment livepatching is supported for
From: Jiangjiji
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 15:29:57 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] * gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.opt: Add a new option.
* gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c: Add some new functions and Macros.
* gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.h: Modify PROFILE_HOOK and FUNCTION_PROFILER.
Signed-off-by: Jiangjiji
Sign
在 2015/5/28 16:39, Maxim Kuvyrkov 写道:
Hi,
Akashi-san and I have been discussing required GCC changes to make kernel's livepatching work for
AArch64 and other architectures. At the moment livepatching is supported for x86[_64] using the
following options: "-pg -mfentry -mrecord-mcount -mnop-
Hi,
The feedback in this thread was overall positive with good suggestions
on implementation details. I'm starting to work on the first draft,
and plan to post something in 2-4 weeks.
Thanks.
On 28 May 2015 at 11:39, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Akashi-san and I have been discussing require
> > As I am bit concerned with performance why require nops there? Add a
> > byte count number >= requested thats boundary of next instruction. When
> > lifepatching for return you need to copy this followed by jump back to next
> > instruction. Then gcc could fill that with instructions that don't
On 06/04/2015 09:15 AM, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:37:53PM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>> On 05/28/2015 11:16 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
On May 28, 2015, at 11:59 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
>> ...
Maybe follow s390 -mhotpatch instead?
>>>
>>> Regarding impleme
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Rather than just a sequence of NOP's, should the first NOP be a
>> unconditional branch to the beginning of the real function? I don't
>> know if this applies to AArch64 cpus, but I believe some cpus can handle
>> such branches already in the
> Rather than just a sequence of NOP's, should the first NOP be a
> unconditional branch to the beginning of the real function? I don't
> know if this applies to AArch64 cpus, but I believe some cpus can handle
> such branches already in the decode unit, thus avoiding any extra cycles
> for skippi
On 28/05/15 10:39, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Akashi-san and I have been discussing required GCC changes to make
> kernel's livepatching work for AArch64 and other architectures. At
> the moment livepatching is supported for x86[_64] using the following
> options: "-pg -mfentry -mrecord-mcou
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:37:53PM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 11:16 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> >> On May 28, 2015, at 11:59 AM, Richard Biener
> >> wrote:
> ...
> >> Maybe follow s390 -mhotpatch instead?
> >
> > Regarding implementation of the option, it will follow what s390
On 2015/5/28 16:39, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Akashi-san and I have been discussing required GCC changes to make kernel's
> livepatching work for AArch64 and other architectures. At the moment
> livepatching is supported for x86[_64] using the following options: "-pg
> -mfentry -mrecord-
On 05/28/2015 01:39 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Akashi-san and I have been discussing required GCC changes to make kernel's
> livepatching work for AArch64 and other architectures. At the moment
> livepatching is supported for x86[_64] using the following options: "-pg
> -mfentry -mrec
> Our proposal is that instead of adding -mfentry/-mnop-count/-mrecord-mcount
> options to other architectures, we should implement a target-independent
> option -fprolog-pad=N, which will generate a pad of N nops at the beginning
> of each function and add a section entry describing the pad sim
On 05/28/2015 11:16 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>> On May 28, 2015, at 11:59 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
...
>> Maybe follow s390 -mhotpatch instead?
>
> Regarding implementation of the option, it will follow what s390 is doing
> with function attributes to mark which functions to apply nop-trea
> On May 28, 2015, at 11:59 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
> On May 28, 2015 10:39:27 AM GMT+02:00, Maxim Kuvyrkov
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Akashi-san and I have been discussing required GCC changes to make
>> kernel's livepatching work for AArch64 and other architectures. At the
>> moment livep
On May 28, 2015 10:39:27 AM GMT+02:00, Maxim Kuvyrkov
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Akashi-san and I have been discussing required GCC changes to make
>kernel's livepatching work for AArch64 and other architectures. At the
>moment livepatching is supported for x86[_64] using the following
>options: "-pg -mfent
Hi,
Akashi-san and I have been discussing required GCC changes to make kernel's
livepatching work for AArch64 and other architectures. At the moment
livepatching is supported for x86[_64] using the following options: "-pg
-mfentry -mrecord-mcount -mnop-mcount" which is geek-speak for "please a
22 matches
Mail list logo
