Re: Stack analysis tool that really work?

From	Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.arch.embedded
Subject	Re: Stack analysis tool that really work?
Date	2021-08-07 20:46 +0300
Organization	Tidorum Ltd
Message-ID	<in7v7cFjeflU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(11 earlier) <in5iifF4i5gU1@mid.individual.net> <sekf60$uvl$1@dont-email.me> <sekfad$uvl$2@dont-email.me> <in78kdFeu52U1@mid.individual.net> <semfoj$o70$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2021-08-07 20:26, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 4:20 AM, Niklas Holsti wrote:

(In a discussion about WCET analysis more than stack analysis:)

>> Ok. If you describe your needs, perhaps I can comment.
> 
> I'm targeting some of the bigger ARM offerings -- A53/55.  My
> impression is they go through more "contortions" to eke out
> additional performance than some of the smaller processors.

Out of scope for Bound-T, I'm sure. Even the AbsInt tool has no support 
for static WCET analysis of those processors and their ARM page suggests 
a hybrid tool instead (https://www.absint.com/ait/arm.htm).

>> In my experience, access to memory-mapped registers tends to be not 
>> much slower than access to memory. Also, quite often the addresses in 
>> MMIO accesses are static or easy to derive in static analysis, so the 
>> WCET tool could choose the proper access time, if the tool knows 
>> enough about the system architecture.
> 
> Yes, that last phrase being the kicker.  Can this be simplified to 
> something as crude as a "memory map"?

It seems so, if the access time is simply a function of the accessed 
address.

>> What is VMM?
> 
> Virtual Memory Management.  I.e., when an opcode fetch (or argument 
> reference) can not only take longer than a cache miss... but
> *considerably* longer as the physical memory is mapped in while the
> instruction stream "stalls".

I don't recall seeing any static WCET analysis for page faults, but 
there may be some for Translation Look-aside Buffer misses. Out of my 
competence, and out of scope for Bound-T, certainly.

> [Note that a page fault need not map physical memory in the
> traditional sense. It can also cause some "special" function to be
> invoked to provide the requisite data/access.  So, the cost of a
> fault can vary depend on *what* is faulting and which pager is
> handling that fault]

You may be able to map some of that into a very capable schedulability 
analyzer, one that can handle chains of "tasks" passing data/messages to 
each other. But translating the application logic and system behaviour 
into a model for such a schedulability analyzer is not trivial.

Thread

Stack analysis tool that really work? pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 18:22 +0200
  Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-07-29 19:36 +0300
  Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-02 17:56 -0700
    Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-03 11:43 +0300
      Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-03 02:28 -0700
        Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-04 22:14 +0300
          Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-04 15:43 -0700
    Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 11:49 +0200
      Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-03 20:17 -0700
        Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 16:43 +0200
          Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-04 11:06 -0700
            Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-05 12:00 +0300
              Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-05 04:54 -0700
      Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-04 20:00 +0300
        Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-04 10:50 -0700
          Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-04 21:50 +0300
            Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-04 15:46 -0700
              Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-05 13:43 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-05 06:16 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-05 18:39 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-06 01:09 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-06 22:58 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-06 16:04 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-06 16:06 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 14:20 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-07 10:26 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 20:46 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-07 15:14 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 14:09 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-07 08:09 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 19:50 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 20:02 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-07 10:34 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 21:10 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2021-08-06 22:55 -0400
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 13:40 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2021-08-08 18:34 -0400
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-09 10:50 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2021-08-09 11:26 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-09 22:59 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-09 12:04 -0700
          Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-05 13:18 +0300
            Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-05 04:59 -0700

csiph-web