[PATCH 3.18-rc3 v9 5/5] arm: smp: Handle ipi_cpu_backtrace() using FIQ (if available)
tim at krieglstein.org
Fri Nov 28 01:10:04 PST 2014
Hi Daniel, Russell
Am Mittwoch, 26. November 2014, 16:17:06 schrieb Daniel Thompson:
> On 26/11/14 13:12, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:46:52PM +0100, Tim Sander wrote:
> >> Hi Daniel
> >> Am Dienstag, 25. November 2014, 17:26:41 schrieb Daniel Thompson:
> >>> Previous changes have introduced both a replacement default FIQ handler
> >>> and an implementation of arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace for ARM but
> >>> these are currently independent of each other.
> >>> This patch plumbs together these features making it possible, on
> >>> platforms
> >>> that support it, to trigger backtrace using FIQ.
> >> Does this ipi handler interfere in any way with set_fiq_handler?
> >> As far as i know there is only one FIQ handler vector so i guess there is
> >> a
> >> potential conflict. But i have not worked with IPI's so i might be
> >> completley wrong.
> > First, the code in arch/arm/kernel/fiq.c should work with this new FIQ
> > code in that the new FIQ code is used as the "default" handler (as
> > opposed to the original handler which was a total no-op.)
> > Secondly, use of arch/arm/kernel/fiq.c in a SMP system is really not a
> > good idea: the FIQ registers are private to each CPU in the system, and
> > there is no infrastructure to allow fiq.c to ensure that it loads the
> > right CPU with the register information for the provided handler.
Well given the races in the GIC v1. i have seen in the chips on my desk
initializing with for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) work_on_cpu(cpu,..) is rather
> > So, use of arch/arm/kernel/fiq.c and the IPI's use of FIQ /should/ be
> > mutually exclusive.
Yes but i digress on the assessment that this a decision between SMP and non-
SMP usage or the availbility of the GIC.
> Agree with the above. Just to add...
> I am currently working to get NMI features from x86 land running on top
> of the new default FIQ handler: arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace (with
> Russell's patch), perf, hard lockup detector, kgdb.
> However I don't think anything I'm doing makes it very much harder than
> it already is to use arch/arm/kernel/fiq.c . That said, other then
> setting the GIC up nicely, I am not doing anything to make it easier either.
> I'd like to end up somewhere where if you want the NMI features (and
> have a suitable device) you just use the default handler and it all just
> works. If you need *Fast* Interrupt reQuests, proper old school "I want
> to write an overclocked I2C slave in software" craziness and you can
> pass on the improved debug features then set_fiq_handler() is still
> there and still need extremely careful handling.
Well i am not against these features as they assumably improve the backtrace,
but it would be nice to have a config option which switches between
set_fiq_handler usage and the other conflicting usages of the fiq.
> The only thing I might have done to make your life worse is not provide
> the code to dynamically shunt all the debug and performance monitoring
> features back to group 1. All except the hard lockup detector will have
> logic to fall back statically. This means making it dynamic shouldn't be
> that hard. However since there is no code in the upstream kernel that
> would use the code I don't plan to go there myself.
I don't think this needs to by dynamic, but from a user perspective a config
option would be really nice.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel