lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] nmi: create generic NMI backtrace implementation
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:51:25AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 16/07/15 10:37, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >That can be implemented in the arch raise() method if needed - most
> >architectures shouldn't need it as if they are properly raising a NMI
> >which is, by definition, deliverable with normal IRQs disabled.
>
> Agreed. The bug certainly could be fixed in the ARM raise() function.
>
> However I'm still curious whether there is any architecture that benefits
> from forcing the current CPU into an NMI handler? Why doesn't the
> don't-run-unnecessary-code argument apply here as well?

The benefit is that we get a consistent way of invoking the backtrace,
since causing the NMI exception gives us a 'struct pt_regs' to work
with, which we wouldn't otherwise have if we tried to call it "inline".

The NMI backtrace includes dumping the register state of the NMI-
receiving CPUs, which needs a 'struct pt_regs' and generating a that in
arch-independent code wouldn't be nice.

In any case, if this area needs changing in the generic code, it should
be done as a separate change so that it can be properly assessed and
validated on x86.

In the mean time, I will action Thomas' request to put it into my tree
so that we can get some reasonable linux-next time with it, and hopefully
have some progress towards FIQ-based backtracing for ARM.

Thanks.

--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-25 17:01    [W:0.069 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site