Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-156946-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <171318533841.254850.15841395205784342850.stgit@devnote2>
 <171318535003.254850.2125783941049872788.stgit@devnote2> <CABRcYmK_Btem8cBbz=j==RWxw11PQ8cNAUshNA540VD3O=2WEQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABRcYmK_Btem8cBbz=j==RWxw11PQ8cNAUshNA540VD3O=2WEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:19:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CABRcYmK+JMLDf41csuZB4aJSb9956wTy=5rpB1YDsSv0-MoZHg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 01/36] tracing: Add a comment about ftrace_regs definition
To: "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, 
	linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, 
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, 
	Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 2:23=E2=80=AFPM Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org=
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 2:49=E2=80=AFPM Masami Hiramatsu (Google)
> <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> >
> > To clarify what will be expected on ftrace_regs, add a comment to the
> > architecture independent definition of the ftrace_regs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > ---
> >  Changes in v8:
> >   - Update that the saved registers depends on the context.
> >  Changes in v3:
> >   - Add instruction pointer
> >  Changes in v2:
> >   - newly added.
> > ---
> >  include/linux/ftrace.h |   26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/ftrace.h b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > index 54d53f345d14..b81f1afa82a1 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > @@ -118,6 +118,32 @@ extern int ftrace_enabled;
> >
> >  #ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS
> >
> > +/**
> > + * ftrace_regs - ftrace partial/optimal register set
> > + *
> > + * ftrace_regs represents a group of registers which is used at the
> > + * function entry and exit. There are three types of registers.
> > + *
> > + * - Registers for passing the parameters to callee, including the sta=
ck
> > + *   pointer. (e.g. rcx, rdx, rdi, rsi, r8, r9 and rsp on x86_64)
> > + * - Registers for passing the return values to caller.
> > + *   (e.g. rax and rdx on x86_64)
>
> Ooc, have we ever considered skipping argument registers that are not
> return value registers in the exit code paths ? For example, why would
> we want to save rdi in a return handler ?
>
> But if we want to avoid the situation of having "sparse ftrace_regs"
> all over again, we'd have to split ftrace_regs into a ftrace_args_regs
> and a ftrace_ret_regs which would make this refactoring even more
> painful, just to skip a few instructions. :|
>
> I don't necessarily think it's worth it, I just wanted to make sure
> this was considered.

Ah, well, I just reached patch 22 and noticed that there you add add:

+ * Basically, ftrace_regs stores the registers related to the context.
+ * On function entry, registers for function parameters and hooking the
+ * function call are stored, and on function exit, registers for function
+ * return value and frame pointers are stored.

So ftrace_regs can be a a sparse structure then. That's fair enough with me=
! ;)