lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] hw-breakpoints, kgdb, x86: add a flag topassDIE_DEBUG notification
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:49:20AM -0500, Jason Wessel wrote:
>> On 07/23/2010 09:07 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 08:19:54AM -0500, Jason Wessel wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/23/2010 08:04 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The patch may or may not be the right way to solve the problem. It is
>>>> worth noting that early breakpoints are handled separately with a direct
>>>> writes to the debug registers so this API does not apply.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But you still need to handle them on the debug exception, right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, but at that point kgdb is first in line for the notifier so it
>> works out of the box.
>
>
> Ok.
>
>
>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> Actually NOTIFY_DONE is returned when there is more work to do: handling
>>> another exception than breakpoint, or sending a signal. Otherwise yeah,
>>> we return NOTIFY_STOP as we assume there is more work to do.
>>>
>>>
>> For this specific case the hw_breakpoint handler simply consumed a
>> breakpoint which was not intended for it.
>
>
>
> Ah right.
>
> But that thing is right:
>
> /*
> * Reset the 'i'th TRAP bit in dr6 to denote completion of
> * exception handling
> */
> (*dr6_p) &= ~(DR_TRAP0 << i);
> /*
> * bp can be NULL due to lazy debug register switching
> * or due to concurrent perf counter removing.
> */
> if (!bp) {
> rcu_read_unlock();
> break;
> }
>
>
> We need to prevent from dr7 lazy switches. It means kgdb must first check
> its own breakpoints.

>
>
>>> So the following alternatives appear to me:
>>>
>>> - Moving the breakpoint exception handling into the
>>> struct perf_event:overflow_handler. In fact I can't find the breakpoint
>>> handling in kgdb.c
>>>
>>>
>> It is in the generic die notification handler for kgdb (looking at
>> 2.6.35-rc6)
>>
>> arch/x86/kernel/kgdb.c
>>
>> 516 static int __kgdb_notify(struct die_args *args, unsigned long cmd)
>> ...
>> 551 case DIE_DEBUG:
>> 552 if (atomic_read(&kgdb_cpu_doing_single_step) !=
>> -1) {
>> 553 if (user_mode(regs))
>> 554 return single_step_cont(regs, args);
>> 555 break;
>> 556 } else if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SINGLESTEP))
>> 557 /* This means a user thread is single
>> stepping
>> 558 * a system call which should be ignored
>> 559 */
>> 560 return NOTIFY_DONE;
>> 561 /* fall through */
>
>
>
> But I can't find where the breakpoints are handled there.
>
>
>
>>> - Have a higher priority in kgdb notifier (which means decreasing the one
>>> of hw_breakpoint.c)
>>>
>> kgdb had always been last in line in arch/x86/kernel/kgdb.c:
>>
>> 608 static struct notifier_block kgdb_notifier = {
>> 609 .notifier_call = kgdb_notify,
>> 610
>> 611 /*
>> 612 * Lowest-prio notifier priority, we want to be notified
>> last:
>> 613 */
>> 614 .priority = -INT_MAX,
>> 615 };
>
>
>
> Why? It seems to me a kernel debugger should have the highest priority
> over anything.

In my option, the reason of kgdb set the lowest-prio for
notifier is:

For letting kgdb to keep simple, there is no codes to check the
breakpoint event was generated by kgdb or not, thus it have to set kgdb
as lowest priority to notifier.

If the breakpoint event is not generated by kgdb, the source of the
breakpoint event will consume that event before passing to kgdb's
routine, so that the breakpoint event of kgdb getting must be generated
by kgdb itself.

>
>
>
>>> - Always returning NOTIFY_DONE from the breakpoint path.
>>>
>>>
>> Without some further investigation, I am not sure what this will do.
>
>
>
> Nothing, this NOTIFY_STOP is only an optimization. But now I think that
> won't solve the problem. We still clear a dr6 trap bit for a debug
> exception due to lazy dr7 switches we have to handle.
>
> This is why kgdb should have the highest priority, or use the overflow
> callback.


OK, I will try to use the overflow callback to let kgdb works with
hw_breakpoints. :-)

Thanks,
Dongdong
>
>
>
>> We
>> don't want to make things worse of course. Because kgdb uses the
>> request hw_breakpoint api to request slot reservation having an
>> attribute to say don't do anything to this HW breakpoint is certainly
>> one way to fix it.
>>
>>> Is this a regression BTW?
>>>
>>>
>> Absolutely this is a regression. No change was made in kgdb related to
>> this and the kgdb HW breakpoint regression tests (which come with the
>> kernel) stopped working and bisect to the commit I mentioned.
>
>
> Yep, this new breakpoint layer has been a PITA for kgdb :)
>
>





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-26 13:11    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans