Re: [PATCH] serial: kgdboc: Allow earlycon initialization to be deferred

[Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:32:01PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:08 AM Daniel Thompson
> <daniel.thompson@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > As described in the big comment in the patch, earlycon initialization
> > can be deferred if, a) earlycon was supplied without arguments and, b)
> > the ACPI SPCR table hasn't yet been parsed.
> >
> > Unfortunately, if deferred, then the earlycon is not ready during early
> > parameter parsing so kgdboc cannot use it. This patch mitigates the
> > problem by giving kgdboc_earlycon a second chance during
> > dbg_late_init(). Adding a special purpose interface slightly increase
> > the intimacy between kgdboc and debug-core but this seems better than
> > adding kgdb specific hooks into the arch code (and much, much better
> > than faking non-intimacy with function pointers).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >
> > Notes:
> >     Hi Doug,
> >
> >     This patch extends your patch set to make it easier to deploy on ACPI
> >     systems[1]:
> >       earlycon kgdboc_earlycon kgdboc=ttyAMA0
> >
> >     I have mixed feeling about it because it adds calls from debug-core
> >     into kgdboc and I don't think there are other examples of this.
> >     However earlycon auto-configuration is so awesome I'd like to
> >     be able to keep using it and this is the best I have come up with
> >     so far ;-).
> 
> It's a little gross, but it's OK with me.  I guess the other option
> would be to have "kgdboc_earlycon" try again at various different
> initcall levels...
> 
> Speaking of which, I wonder if you could just make kgdboc register to
> run at "console_initcall" level.  If I'm reading it properly:
> 
> start_kernel()
> - setup_arch(): ACPI stuff is done by the end of this, right?
> - console_init(): It would be easy to get called here, I think.
> - dbg_late_init(): Where you're hooking in now.
> 
> I didn't put printouts in any code and test it out, but if the above
> is right then you'll actually get called _earlier_ and with less
> hackiness if you just have kgdboc try again at console initlevel.

Thanks, I'll take a look at this. I had a nagging feeling I must be
missing something when I gave up and wrote the hack found in this
patch. Sounds like I should have paid that feeling closer attention!


> > @@ -529,7 +531,23 @@ static int __init kgdboc_earlycon_init(char *opt)
> >         console_unlock();
> >
> >         if (!con) {
> > -               pr_info("Couldn't find kgdb earlycon\n");
> > +               /*
> > +                * If earlycon deferred its initialization then we also need to
> > +                * do that since there is no console at this point. We will
> > +                * only defer ourselves when kgdboc_earlycon has no arguments.
> > +                * This is because earlycon init is only deferred if there are
> > +                * no arguments to earlycon (we assume that a user who doesn't
> > +                * specify an earlycon driver won't know the right console name
> > +                * to put into kgdboc_earlycon and will let that auto-configure
> > +                * too).
> > +                */
> > +               if (!kgdboc_earlycon_late_enable &&
> > +                   earlycon_acpi_spcr_enable && (!opt || !opt[0])) {
> > +                       earlycon_kgdboc_late_enable = true;
> > +                       pr_info("No suitable earlycon yet, will try later\n");
> > +               } else {
> > +                       pr_info("Couldn't find kgdb earlycon\n");
> > +               }
> 
> Personally I'd rather take all the caveats out and just make it
> generic.  Stash the name of the console in a string (you can make it
> initdata so it doesn't waste any space) and just always retry later if
> we didn't find the console.  Then you don't need to be quite so
> fragile and if someone else finds another reason to delay earlycon
> we'll still work.

Will do.


> Speaking of which, if we build kgdboc as a module won't you get an
> error accessing "earlycon_acpi_spcr_enable"?

Very likely. I have a note to test this as a module but was curious
whether having kgdb_earlycon_late_init() was the right approach
anyway.


> > diff --git a/include/linux/kgdb.h b/include/linux/kgdb.h
> > index 77a3c519478a..02867a2f0eb4 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kgdb.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kgdb.h
> > @@ -227,6 +227,8 @@ extern int kgdb_arch_remove_breakpoint(struct kgdb_bkpt *bpt);
> >  extern void kgdb_arch_late(void);
> >
> >
> > +extern void __init kgdb_earlycon_late_init(void);
> > +
> 
> It's not required to add "__init" for declarations, is it?

This is just matching styles with the rest of the file (like the
extern). Maybe I'll put polishing the header a little on my TODO
list.


> >   * struct kgdb_arch - Describe architecture specific values.
> >   * @gdb_bpt_instr: The instruction to trigger a breakpoint.
> > diff --git a/kernel/debug/debug_core.c b/kernel/debug/debug_core.c
> > index 2d74dcbca477..f066ef2bc615 100644
> > --- a/kernel/debug/debug_core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/debug/debug_core.c
> > @@ -963,11 +963,15 @@ void __weak kgdb_arch_late(void)
> >  {
> >  }
> >
> > +void __init __weak kgdb_earlycon_late_init(void)
> > +
> 
> I assume the above is because "kgdboc" can be compiled as a module and
> you need to essentially no-op your call in that case?  If so, could
> you add a comment about it?  I also would have thought you'd actually
> need to define the weak function implementation, not just declare it.
> Maybe I'm confused, though.

Ah...

When I rebased this patch on your most recent patchset I did most of the
fix ups during the merge. The final few problems I caught *after* the
merge and it looks like I neglected to commit them. Sorry... and I'm
just relieved you didn't try and compile test this patch!


> >  void __init dbg_late_init(void)
> >  {
> >         dbg_is_early = false;
> >         if (kgdb_io_module_registered)
> >                 kgdb_arch_late();
> > +       else
> > +               kgdb_earlycon_late_init();
> >         kdb_init(KDB_INIT_FULL);
> 
> It feels like it'd be better not to make yourself an "else" but rather
> to add a 2nd "if" test either at the beginning or the end of this
> function.  I'm 99% sure it makes no difference, but it makes my brain
> hurt a little trying to prove it because you've added another flow of
> control to analyze / keep working.  Specifically you've now got a case
> where you're running a bunch of the "debug_core" code where
> "dbg_is_early = false" but you haven't yet run "KDB_INIT_FULL".
> 
> Anyway, I don't feel that strongly about it, so if you really like it
> the way it is that's fine...

It is done this way to prevent kgdb_arch_late() being called twice
(because I don't want to have to mandate that kgdb_arch_late() is
idempotent on every architecture).

However I guess a simple alternative would be to call
kgdb_earlycon_late_init() *before* setting dbg_is_early to false.

Anyhow, I hope you early review comments mean this issue can become
irrelevant anyway!


Daniel.