Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:51:27 +0530
From:	"K.Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v6] hw-breakpoints: Rewrite on top of perf events v6

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:13:42AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * K.Prasad <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hi Frederic, Ingo,
> > 		Here are a few concerns (roughly in decreasing order of
> > priority) about the perf-events integrated hw-breakpoint feature.
> > 
> > - Freeze the breakpoint interfaces: Owing to the many 
> > current/potential users of hw-breakpoint feature it is important to 
> > provide a stable interface to the end-user. Changes underneath the 
> > interface can be done in due course in a manner that does not affect 
> > the end-user's behaviour or function signature. The present breakpoint 
> > interface requires parameters that are best embedded in a structure 
> > for extensibility.
> 
> Well we have PERF_TYPE_BREAKPOINT right now. I agree that it should be 
> finalized in some sort of extensible ABI real soon - we dont want (and 
> dont need to) add all features that might be possible in the future.
> 

It is not about implementing futuristic features, but provide an
interface which we know isn't going to change in the near future and
will be flexible to accommodate arch-specific requirements. For
instance the register_wide_hw_breakpoint() has an interface as below:

struct perf_event **
register_wide_hw_breakpoint(unsigned long addr,
                            int len,
                            int type,
                            perf_callback_t triggered,
                            bool active)

Given the diversity seen in debug registers across processors, it isn't
prudent to demand/limit the parameters required to those seen above.
It can be made a part of one of perf-events' structures (with some fields
in arch-specific structures) and the ABI can accept a pointer to one
such structure.

In this way it would be easy to bring-in arch-specific quirks without
altering the interface's signature.

> > - Proposed migration of register allocation logic to arch-specific 
> > files from kernel/hw_breakpoint.c. This is best done early to help 
> > easy porting of code to other architectures (we have an active 
> > interest in bringing support for PPC64 and S390). If done later, it 
> > will entail additional effort in porting for each architecture.
> 
> I think the general direction should be towards librarized common 
> frameworks.
> 
> If an architecture wants to do something special it should either extend 
> the core code, or, if it's too weird to be added to the core, override 
> it via its own implementation.
> 

Given the feeling that the generic set of constraints in the re-written
kernel/hw_breakpoint.c cannot accommodate the needs of various
processors (LKML ref:20091117013959.GG5293@...her) and that
the register allocation logic should move to arch-specific code, it is
best done early to help easy porting for other archs. For instance
there's already a port to PPC64 against the layered hw-breakpoint
(found here: 20090903183930.GA4590@...ibm.com) and one from the
community for SH (20091018062558.GA20535@...ux-sh.org).

If such code migration is done while porting of a new architecture, then
it involves making changes to every other arch on which it is previously
implemented (or workaround using #ifdef).

> > - Fix ptrace bugs that potentially alter the semantics of ptrace.
> 
> Is there a specific list of these bugs?
> 

As pointed out in 20091111130207.GA5676@...ibm.com and
20091112042502.GA3145@...ibm.com, ptrace requests can a) lose register
slots when modifying the breakpoint addresses and b) new implementation
assumes that every DR7 write to be preceded by a write on DR0-DR3 which
need not be true.

> > - Bring either true system_wide support or atleast workaround the 
> > side-effects of iterative per-cpu registration using single atomic 
> > enablement of all per-cpu breakpoints. This can avoid stray exceptions 
> > which would get delivered to the end-user even for failed breakpoint 
> > requests.
> 
> That can certainly be done when users of such facilities emerge. Right 
> now we have perf and ptrace as the two users - are they affected by 
> these problems?
> 

ksym_tracer - the ftrace plugin (kernel/trace/trace_ksym.c) using
hw-breakpoints will be affected. Spurious exceptions due to partially
registered breakpoint requests can be dangerous here.

Thanks,
K.Prasad

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists