Hi,
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 4:21 PM Doug Anderson <diand...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 6:49 AM Daniel Thompson
> <daniel.thomp...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 03:56:01PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > From: Sumit Garg <sumit.g...@linaro.org>
> > >
> > > Add a new API kgdb_smp_call_nmi_hook() to expose default CPUs roundup
> > > mechanism to a particular archichecture as a runtime fallback if it
> > > detects to not support NMI roundup.
> > >
> > > Currently such an architecture example is arm64 supporting pseudo NMIs
> > > feature which is only available on platforms which have support for GICv3
> > > or later version.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.g...@linaro.org>
> > > Tested-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <w...@csie.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <diand...@chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > (no changes since v1)
> > >
> > > include/linux/kgdb.h | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > kernel/debug/debug_core.c | 8 +++++++-
> > > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/kgdb.h b/include/linux/kgdb.h
> > > index 258cdde8d356..87713bd390f3 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/kgdb.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/kgdb.h
> > > @@ -199,6 +199,18 @@ kgdb_arch_handle_qxfer_pkt(char *remcom_in_buffer,
> > >
> > > extern void kgdb_call_nmi_hook(void *ignored);
> > >
> > > +/**
> > > + * kgdb_smp_call_nmi_hook - Provide default fallback mechanism to
> > > + * round-up CPUs
> > > + *
> > > + * If you're using the default implementation of kgdb_roundup_cpus()
> > > + * this function will be called. And if an arch detects at runtime to
> > > + * not support NMI based roundup then it can fallback to default
> > > + * mechanism using this API.
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +extern void kgdb_smp_call_nmi_hook(void);
> >
> > Concept looks sensible but this is a terrible name for aa command to
> > round up the CPUs using smp_call... functions. Whilst it is true it that
> > kgdb_roundup_cpus() does use kgdb_call_nmi_hook() internally that
> > doesn't mean we should name functions after it. They should be named
> > after what they are do, not how they do it.
> >
> > Something more like kgdb_roundup_cpus_with_smp_call() would be a much
> > better name.
>
> Sounds good. I'm happy to spin with this rename, though I was kinda
> hoping to drop ${SUBJECT} patch if folks were OK with patch #10 in
> this series [1]. I personally think that's the right way to go but
> it's unclear to me if arm64 maintainers will think it's a hack
> (despite the fact that arm32 implements the "nmi" functions with
> regular IPIs).
>
> For now, maybe I'll think positive thoughts and hope that folks will
> have the time to review the series soon. If another few weeks go by
> then I'll send a v9 with just your comments addressed. If nothing
> else, maybe you can land the kgdb parts in a tree targeting v6.5 and
> then when arm64 folks have the bandwidth then it will be easier to get
> them landed.
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230419155341.v8.10.Ic3659997d6243139d0522fc3afcdfd88d7a5f030@changeid
Breadcrumbs: I've dropped this patch and several others in v9 [1] by
embracing the idea of using a normal IPI as a fallback.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230601213440.2488667-1-diand...@chromium.org/
_______________________________________________
Kgdb-bugreport mailing list
Kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
