[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150706093114.GB11590@cbox>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 11:31:14 +0200
From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
"peter.maydell@...aro.org" <peter.maydell@...aro.org>,
"agraf@...e.de" <agraf@...e.de>,
"drjones@...hat.com" <drjones@...hat.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"zhichao.huang@...aro.org" <zhichao.huang@...aro.org>,
"jan.kiszka@...mens.com" <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
"dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"r65777@...escale.com" <r65777@...escale.com>,
"bp@...e.de" <bp@...e.de>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:ABI/API" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 09/11] KVM: arm64: guest debug, HW assisted debug
support
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 09:51:40AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 05:07:41PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> > Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> writes:
> > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 02:50:33PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> > >> Are you happy with this?:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >> +/**
> > >> + * kvm_arch_dev_ioctl_check_extension
> > >> + *
> > >> + * We currently assume that the number of HW registers is uniform
> > >> + * across all CPUs (see cpuinfo_sanity_check).
> > >> + */
> > >> int kvm_arch_dev_ioctl_check_extension(long ext)
> > >> {
> > >> int r;
> > >> @@ -64,6 +71,12 @@ int kvm_arch_dev_ioctl_check_extension(long ext)
> > >> case KVM_CAP_ARM_EL1_32BIT:
> > >> r = cpu_has_32bit_el1();
> > >> break;
> > >> + case KVM_CAP_GUEST_DEBUG_HW_BPS:
> > >> + r = hw_breakpoint_slots(TYPE_INST);
> > >> + break;
> > >> + case KVM_CAP_GUEST_DEBUG_HW_WPS:
> > >> + r = hw_breakpoint_slots(TYPE_DATA);
> > >> + break;
> > >
> > > Whilst I much prefer this code, it actually adds an unwanted dependency
> > > on PERF_EVENTS that I didn't think about to start with. Sorry to keep
> > > messing you about -- I guess your original patch is the best thing after
> > > all.
> >
> > Everything looks to be in hw_breakpoint.[ch] which does depend on
> > CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT which depends on PERF_EVENTS to be built.
> > However the previous code depended on this behaviour as well.
>
> I think your original approach (of sticking stuff in the header file) works
> regardless of the CONFIG option, no?
>
> > It would seem weird to enable guest debug using HW debug registers to
> > debug the guest yet not allowing the host kernel to use them? Of course
> > this is the only code they would share as all the magic of guest
> > debugging is already mostly there for dirty guest handling.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with Kconfig but it looks like this is all part of
> > arm64 defconfig. Are people really going to want to disable PERF_EVENTS
> > but still debug their guests with HW support?
>
> Then it's your call. I just find the host dependency on perf a bit weird
> to get guest debug working (especially as the dependency is completely
> "fake" because we don't use any perf infrastructure at all).
>
Agreed, let's see if we can avoid this.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
--
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