On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 8:53 PM Pu Lehui <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Add riscv-specific USDT argument specification parsing logic.
> riscv USDT argument format is shown below:
> - Memory dereference case:
> "size@off(reg)", e.g. "-8@-88(s0)"
> - Constant value case:
> "size@val", e.g. "4@5"
> - Register read case:
> "size@reg", e.g. "-8@a1"
>
> s8 will be marked as poison while it's a reg of riscv, we need
> to alias it in advance.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <[email protected]>
> ---
Can you please mention briefly the testing you performed as I'm not
able to test this locally.
> tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c | 107 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 107 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c b/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c
> index 934c25301ac1..b8af409cc763 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,11 @@
> #include <linux/ptrace.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>
> +/* s8 will be marked as poison while it's a reg of riscv */
> +#if defined(__riscv)
> +#define rv_s8 s8
> +#endif
> +
> #include "bpf.h"
> #include "libbpf.h"
> #include "libbpf_common.h"
> @@ -1400,6 +1405,108 @@ static int parse_usdt_arg(const char *arg_str, int arg_num, struct usdt_arg_spec
> return len;
> }
>
> +#elif defined(__riscv)
> +
> +static int calc_pt_regs_off(const char *reg_name)
> +{
> + static struct {
> + const char *name;
> + size_t pt_regs_off;
> + } reg_map[] = {
> + { "ra", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, ra) },
> + { "sp", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, sp) },
> + { "gp", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, gp) },
> + { "tp", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, tp) },
> + { "t0", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, t0) },
> + { "t1", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, t1) },
> + { "t2", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, t2) },
> + { "s0", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, s0) },
> + { "s1", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, s1) },
> + { "a0", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, a0) },
> + { "a1", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, a1) },
> + { "a2", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, a2) },
> + { "a3", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, a3) },
> + { "a4", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, a4) },
> + { "a5", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, a5) },
> + { "a6", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, a6) },
> + { "a7", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, a7) },
> + { "s2", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, s2) },
> + { "s3", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, s3) },
> + { "s4", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, s4) },
> + { "s5", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, s5) },
> + { "s6", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, s6) },
> + { "s7", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, s7) },
> + { "s8", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, rv_s8) },
> + { "s9", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, s9) },
> + { "s10", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, s10) },
> + { "s11", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, s11) },
> + { "t3", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, t3) },
> + { "t4", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, t4) },
> + { "t5", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, t5) },
> + { "t6", offsetof(struct user_regs_struct, t6) },
would it make sense to order registers a bit more "logically"? Like
s0-s11, t0-t6, etc. Right now it looks very random and it's hard to
see if all the registers from some range of registers are defined.
> + };
> + int i;
> +
[...]