Message-ID: <20090313034301.GE11355@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:43:01 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [patch 02/11] x86 architecture implementation of Hardware
	Breakpoint interfaces


* Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> wrote:

> Perhaps it would help if asm-generic/hw_breakpoint.h had some 
> kerneldoc comments for the arch-specific functions that the 
> arch's asm/hw_breakpoint.h must define (in the style of 
> asm-generic/syscall.h).  I note that Ingo didn't have any 
> comments about asm-generic/hw_breakpoint.h in his review. Its 
> purpose should be to make any arch maintainer understand why 
> the API it specifies for each arch to meet makes sense across 
> the arch's.
> 
> > why this redirection, why dont just use the structure as-is? 
> > If there's any arch weirdness then that arch should have 
> > arch-special accessors - not the generic code.
> 
> The fields of arch_hw_breakpoint are arch-specific.  Another 
> arch's struct will not have .type and .len fields at all.  
> e.g., on powerpc there is just one size supported, so 
> hw_breakpoint_get_len() would be an inline returning a 
> constant.  Its type is encoded in low bits of the address 
> word, and the arch implementation may not want to use 
> bit-field called .type for that (and if it did, it couldn't 
> use a bit-field called .address with the meaning you'd want it 
> to have).
> 
> Having any fields in arch_hw_breakpoint at all be part of the 
> API restricts the arch implementation unreasonably.  So it has 
> accessors to fetch them instead.  (Arguably we could punt 
> those accessors from the API for hw_breakpoint users, but the 
> arch-independent part of the hw_breakpoint implementation 
> might still want them, I'm not sure.) Likewise, they need to 
> be filled in by setters or by explicit type/len arguments to 
> the registration calls.  This appears to be a tenet we worked 
> out the first time around that has gotten lost in the shuffle 
> more recently.
> 
> I think it would be illustrative to have a second arch 
> implementation to compare to the x86 one.  Ingo has a tendency 
> to pretend everything is an x86 until shown the concrete 
> evidence.  The obvious choice is powerpc. Its facility is very 
> simple, so the arch-specific part of the implementation should 
> be trivial--it's the "base case" of simplest available 
> hw_breakpoint arch, really.  Also, it happens that Prasad's 
> employer is interested in having that support.
> 
> For example, a sensible powerpc implementation would clearly 
> demonstrate why you need accessors or at least either 
> pre-registration setters or explicit type/len arguments in 
> registration calls.

That would help. I indeed have a tendency to strike out code 
that's not immediately needed, i also tend to make sure that 
design is sane on the platform that 95%+ of our active 
developers/users use.

The core issue being discussed is the debug register allocation 
and scheduling model though, and you have not directly commented 
on that.

My argument in a nutshell is that a bottom-up for user + 
top-down for kernel use static allocator with no dynamic 
scheduling will get us most of the benefits with a tenth of the 
complexity.

	Ingo
--
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