Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1506349 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-22 01:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-10-24 11:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH v2] debug: More properly delay for secondary CPUs Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> - 2016-10-22 01:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] debug: More properly delay for secondary CPUs Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org> - 2016-10-24 11:20 +0200
| From | Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 01:10 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH v2] debug: More properly delay for secondary CPUs |
| Message-ID | <suR6O-3Qz-51@gated-at.bofh.it> |
We've got a delay loop waiting for secondary CPUs. That loop uses
loops_per_jiffy. However, loops_per_jiffy doesn't actually mean how
many tight loops make up a jiffy on all architectures. It is quite
common to see things like this in the boot log:
Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value calculated using timer
frequency.. 48.00 BogoMIPS (lpj=24000)
In my case I was seeing lots of cases where other CPUs timed out
entering the debugger only to print their stack crawls shortly after the
kdb> prompt was written.
Elsewhere in kgdb we already use udelay(), so that should be safe enough
to use to implement our timeout. We'll delay 1 ms for 1000 times, which
should give us a full second of delay (just like the old code wanted)
but allow us to notice that we're done every 1 ms.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
---
Changes in v2:
- Use udelay, not __delay
kernel/debug/debug_core.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/debug/debug_core.c b/kernel/debug/debug_core.c
index 0874e2edd275..85a246feb442 100644
--- a/kernel/debug/debug_core.c
+++ b/kernel/debug/debug_core.c
@@ -61,6 +61,8 @@
#include "debug_core.h"
+#define WAIT_CPUS_STOP_MS 1000
+
static int kgdb_break_asap;
struct debuggerinfo_struct kgdb_info[NR_CPUS];
@@ -598,11 +600,11 @@ static int kgdb_cpu_enter(struct kgdb_state *ks, struct pt_regs *regs,
/*
* Wait for the other CPUs to be notified and be waiting for us:
*/
- time_left = loops_per_jiffy * HZ;
+ time_left = WAIT_CPUS_STOP_MS;
while (kgdb_do_roundup && --time_left &&
(atomic_read(&masters_in_kgdb) + atomic_read(&slaves_in_kgdb)) !=
online_cpus)
- cpu_relax();
+ udelay(1000);
if (!time_left)
pr_crit("Timed out waiting for secondary CPUs.\n");
--
2.8.0.rc3.226.g39d4020
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 11:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <svJAe-5Aj-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1506349 |
On 22/10/16 00:09, Douglas Anderson wrote: > We've got a delay loop waiting for secondary CPUs. That loop uses > loops_per_jiffy. However, loops_per_jiffy doesn't actually mean how > many tight loops make up a jiffy on all architectures. It is quite > common to see things like this in the boot log: > Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value calculated using timer > frequency.. 48.00 BogoMIPS (lpj=24000) > > In my case I was seeing lots of cases where other CPUs timed out > entering the debugger only to print their stack crawls shortly after the > kdb> prompt was written. > > Elsewhere in kgdb we already use udelay(), so that should be safe enough > to use to implement our timeout. We'll delay 1 ms for 1000 times, which > should give us a full second of delay (just like the old code wanted) > but allow us to notice that we're done every 1 ms. > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > --- > Changes in v2: > - Use udelay, not __delay > > kernel/debug/debug_core.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/debug/debug_core.c b/kernel/debug/debug_core.c > index 0874e2edd275..85a246feb442 100644 > --- a/kernel/debug/debug_core.c > +++ b/kernel/debug/debug_core.c > @@ -61,6 +61,8 @@ > > #include "debug_core.h" > > +#define WAIT_CPUS_STOP_MS 1000 > + > static int kgdb_break_asap; > > struct debuggerinfo_struct kgdb_info[NR_CPUS]; > @@ -598,11 +600,11 @@ static int kgdb_cpu_enter(struct kgdb_state *ks, struct pt_regs *regs, > /* > * Wait for the other CPUs to be notified and be waiting for us: > */ > - time_left = loops_per_jiffy * HZ; > + time_left = WAIT_CPUS_STOP_MS; Might be nit picking but a named constant used only one, with 500 lines between defn and use and with a slightly cryptic name doesn't make the code easier to read. Perhaps just: time_left = MSEC_PER_SEC; > while (kgdb_do_roundup && --time_left && > (atomic_read(&masters_in_kgdb) + atomic_read(&slaves_in_kgdb)) != > online_cpus) > - cpu_relax(); > + udelay(1000); I guess mdelay(1) might be read better but I don't care especially much so with the first change and with your preference on the second: Reviewed-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org> Also I think this is arguably a regression (sorry) so it might also be worth adding: Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.0+ Daniel.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web