[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271428530.23489.3.camel@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:35:30 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"K . Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] hw-breakpoints: Separate constraint space for
data and instruction breakpoints
Hello Frederic,
Thanks for this.
On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 00:01 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> There are two outstanding fashions for archs to implement hardware
> breakpoints.
>
> The first is to separate breakpoint address pattern definition
> space between data and instruction breakpoints. We then have
> typically distinct instruction address breakpoint registers
> and data address breakpoint registers, delivered with
> separate control registers for data and instruction breakpoints
> as well. This is the case of PowerPc and ARM for example.
>
> The second consists in having merged breakpoint address space
> definition between data and instruction breakpoint. Address
> registers can host either instruction or data address and
> the access mode for the breakpoint is defined in a control
> register. This is the case of x86.
>
> This patch adds a new CONFIG_HAVE_MIXED_BREAKPOINTS_REGS config
> that archs can select if they belong to the second case. Those
> will have their slot allocation merged for instructions and
> data breakpoints.
>
> The others will have a separate slot tracking between data and
> instruction breakpoints.
This looks useful for supporting architectures with separate
data/instruction breakpoints.
A couple of points:
1.) Will this affect the arch backend at all?
2.) On ARM, it is possible to have different numbers of breakpoint registers
and watchpoint registers [which we do not know until runtime]. This
means that we have to define HBP_NUM as a potential upper bound,
which seems a bit wasteful. Perhaps there could be a mechanism to
register the available resources at runtime?
Thanks,
Will
--
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