Mirror of the gdb mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>, Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Problem with GDB when debugging IRQ handlers
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:29:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110628143014.GD7255@1n450.cable.virginmedia.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110628142045.GC7255@1n450.cable.virginmedia.net>

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:20:45PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 04:06:11PM +0400, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
> > On 6/28/11, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > I did some checks. It seems, the problem isn't related to unwinder. At least
> > it looks like kernel has all necessary unwinding subops. It looks like the
> > problem is really related to the lack of necessary .cfi information. At least
> > when i added .cfi_startproc/.cfi_endproc annotations to entry-armv.S code,
> > gdb stopped decoding backtrace with the "previous frame identical to this frame"
> > error. Unfortunately I don't have enough knowledge to add .cfi annotations to
> > irq handlers.
> 
> I think it may have stopped decoding because of some information it
> reads from the stack doesn't look sane. But I wonder whether we could
> get it looping again depending on the register values in the interrupted
> context.
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S b/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S
> > index e8d8856..d77f9d7 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S
> > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> >  #include "entry-header.S"
> >  #include <asm/entry-macro-multi.S>
> >  
> > +	.cfi_sections	.debug_frame
> >  /*
> >   * Interrupt handling.  Preserves r7, r8, r9
> >   */
> > @@ -113,6 +114,7 @@ ENDPROC(__und_invalid)
> >  
> >  	.macro	svc_entry, stack_hole=0
> >   UNWIND(.fnstart		)
> > +	.cfi_startproc
> >   UNWIND(.save {r0 - pc}		)
> >  	sub	sp, sp, #(S_FRAME_SIZE + \stack_hole - 4)
> 
> Could you add some directives like below in the svc_entry macro (after
> "sub sp...", not sure if it matters) and check whether gdb behaves
> better:
> 
> 	.cfi_def_cfa_offset S_PC
> 	.cfi_offset 14, -4

Actually since the return address is in S_PC (which maybe gdb assumes it
would be the saved LR), this is probably not be correct. After SVC
entry, we have he following structure on the stack:

	ORIG_r0
	CPSR
		<--- assuming this is the Call Frame Address (SP+S_PC+4)
	PC	<--- CFA - 4
	LR	<--- don't care
	SP	<--- CFA - 12
	...


So we tell gdb about this with something like below (untested):

	.cfi_def_cfa_offset S_PC + 4
	.cfi_offset 14, -4
	.cfi_offset 13, -12

-- 
Catalin


  reply	other threads:[~2011-06-28 14:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20110627125306.GA30646@doriath.ww600.siemens.net>
     [not found] ` <20110627132735.GE16103@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
2011-06-27 14:04   ` Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
2011-06-27 14:12     ` Hui Zhu
2011-06-27 14:59     ` Yao Qi
2011-06-28 10:40       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-28 12:06         ` Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
2011-06-28 12:14           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-28 14:19           ` Catalin Marinas
2011-06-28 14:29             ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2011-06-28 14:38               ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-28 14:42                 ` Catalin Marinas
2011-06-28 14:44               ` Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
2011-06-28 14:58                 ` Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
2011-06-28 15:06                   ` Catalin Marinas
2011-06-28 15:46                     ` Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
2011-06-28 16:11                       ` Catalin Marinas
2011-06-28 22:26                         ` Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
2011-06-29  9:10                           ` Catalin Marinas
2011-06-29 11:21                             ` Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
2011-06-28 12:07         ` Hui Zhu
2011-06-28 12:09           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-28 13:22             ` Catalin Marinas

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20110628143014.GD7255@1n450.cable.virginmedia.net \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dbaryshkov@gmail.com \
    --cc=eric.y.miao@gmail.com \
    --cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=yao@codesourcery.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox