[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <05a195374cc81008e95e258221fe7d2b@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 17:36:49 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
jason@...edaemon.net, julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com,
dianders@...omium.org, daniel.thompson@...aro.org,
jason.wessel@...driver.com, kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] arm64: smp: Introduce a new IPI as
IPI_CALL_NMI_FUNC
On 2020-09-03 13:05, Sumit Garg wrote:
> Introduce a new inter processor interrupt as IPI_CALL_NMI_FUNC that
> can be invoked to run special handlers in NMI context. One such handler
> example is kgdb_nmicallback() which is invoked in order to round up
> CPUs
> to enter kgdb context.
>
> As currently pseudo NMIs are supported on specific arm64 platforms
> which
> incorporates GICv3 or later version of interrupt controller. In case a
> particular platform doesn't support pseudo NMIs, IPI_CALL_NMI_FUNC will
> act as a normal IPI which can still be used to invoke special handlers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h | 1 +
> arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
> index 2e7f529..e85f5d5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
> @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ extern void secondary_entry(void);
>
> extern void arch_send_call_function_single_ipi(int cpu);
> extern void arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask(const struct cpumask
> *mask);
> +extern void arch_send_call_nmi_func_ipi_mask(const struct cpumask
> *mask);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_ACPI_PARKING_PROTOCOL
> extern void arch_send_wakeup_ipi_mask(const struct cpumask *mask);
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> index b6bde26..1b4c07c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ enum ipi_msg_type {
> IPI_TIMER,
> IPI_IRQ_WORK,
> IPI_WAKEUP,
> + IPI_CALL_NMI_FUNC,
> NR_IPI
> };
>
> @@ -793,6 +794,7 @@ static const char *ipi_types[NR_IPI]
> __tracepoint_string = {
> S(IPI_TIMER, "Timer broadcast interrupts"),
> S(IPI_IRQ_WORK, "IRQ work interrupts"),
> S(IPI_WAKEUP, "CPU wake-up interrupts"),
> + S(IPI_CALL_NMI_FUNC, "NMI function call interrupts"),
> };
>
> static void smp_cross_call(const struct cpumask *target, unsigned int
> ipinr);
> @@ -840,6 +842,11 @@ void arch_irq_work_raise(void)
> }
> #endif
>
> +void arch_send_call_nmi_func_ipi_mask(const struct cpumask *mask)
> +{
> + smp_cross_call(mask, IPI_CALL_NMI_FUNC);
> +}
> +
> static void local_cpu_stop(void)
> {
> set_cpu_online(smp_processor_id(), false);
> @@ -932,6 +939,10 @@ static void do_handle_IPI(int ipinr)
> break;
> #endif
>
> + case IPI_CALL_NMI_FUNC:
> + /* nop, IPI handlers for special features can be added here. */
> + break;
> +
> default:
> pr_crit("CPU%u: Unknown IPI message 0x%x\n", cpu, ipinr);
> break;
I'm really not keen on adding more IPIs to the SMP code. One of the
main reasons for using these SGIs as normal IRQs was to make them
"requestable" from non-arch code as if they were standard percpu
interrupts.
What prevents you from moving that all the way to the kgdb code?
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists