From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.thompson@linaro.org (Daniel Thompson) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 10:45:03 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] kgdb: Fix kgdb_roundup_cpus() for arches who used smp_call_function() In-Reply-To: References: <20181030221843.121254-1-dianders@chromium.org> <20181030221843.121254-3-dianders@chromium.org> <20181031184050.sd5opni3mznaapkv@holly.lan> Message-ID: <20181103104503.eftn5btx7otgufro@holly.lan> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 02:41:14PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > As mentioned in another part of the thread we can also add robustness > > by skipping a cpu where csd->flags != 0 (and adding an appropriately > > large comment regarding why). Doing the check directly is abusing > > internal knowledge that smp.c normally keeps to itself so an accessor > > of some kind would be needed. > > Sure. I could add smp_async_func_finished() that just looked like: > > int smp_async_func_finished(call_single_data_t *csd) > { > return !(csd->flags & CSD_FLAG_LOCK); > } > > My understanding of all the mutual exclusion / memory barrier concepts > employed by smp.c is pretty weak, though. I'm hoping that it's safe > to just access the structure and check the bit directly. > > ...but do you think adding a generic accessor like this is better than > just keeping track of this in kgdb directly? I could avoid the > accessor by adding a "rounding_up" member to "struct > debuggerinfo_struct" and doing something like this in roundup: > > /* If it didn't round up last time, don't try again */ > if (kgdb_info[cpu].rounding_up) > continue > > kgdb_info[cpu].rounding_up = true > smp_call_function_single_async(cpu, csd); > > ...and then in kgdb_nmicallback() I could just add: > > kgdb_info[cpu].rounding_up = false > > In that case we're not adding a generic accessor to smp.c that most > people should never use. Whilst it is very tempting to make a sarcastic reply here ("Of course! What kgdb really needs is yet another set of condition variables") I can't because I actually agree with the proposal. I don't really want kgdb to be too "special" especially when it doesn't need to be. Only thing to note is that rounding_up will not be manipulated within a common spin lock so you might have to invest a bit of thought to make sure any races between the master and slave as the slave CPU clears the flag are benign. Daniel.