From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.thompson@linaro.org (Daniel Thompson) Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 12:29:57 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 4.0-rc1 v17 5/6] x86/nmi: Use common printk functions In-Reply-To: <20150305005424.GA21715@gmail.com> References: <1422022952-31552-1-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org> <1425463974-23568-1-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org> <1425463974-23568-6-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org> <20150305005424.GA21715@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1425558597.2769.53.camel@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 01:54 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Daniel Thompson wrote: > > > Much of the code sitting in arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c to support > > safe all-cpu backtracing from NMI has been copied to printk.c to > > make it accessible to other architectures. > > > > Port the x86 NMI backtrace to the generic code. > > Is there any difference between the generic and the x86 code as they > stand today? Shouldn't be any user observable change but there are some changes, mostly due to review comments. 1. The seq_buf structures are initialized at boot and *after* they are consumed (originally they were initialized just before use). 2. The generic code doesn't maintain an equivalent of backtrace_mask (which was essentially a copy of cpus_online made when backtracing was requested) and instead iterates using for_each_possible_cpu() to initialize and dump the seq_buf:s. Daniel. PS The main piece that git code motion tracking should follow if I squashed the generic and x86 patches together would be nmi_vprintk(). I suspect most of the rest would be missed as the code copies is in pretty small fragments. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755576AbbCEMaE (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2015 07:30:04 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com ([74.125.82.172]:35329 "EHLO mail-we0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752553AbbCEMaB (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2015 07:30:01 -0500 Message-ID: <1425558597.2769.53.camel@linaro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.0-rc1 v17 5/6] x86/nmi: Use common printk functions From: Daniel Thompson To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Jason Cooper , Russell King , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Marc Zyngier , Stephen Boyd , John Stultz , Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, patches@linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, Sumit Semwal , Dirk Behme , Daniel Drake , Dmitry Pervushin , Tim Sander , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 12:29:57 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20150305005424.GA21715@gmail.com> References: <1422022952-31552-1-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org> <1425463974-23568-1-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org> <1425463974-23568-6-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org> <20150305005424.GA21715@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11 (3.12.11-1.fc21) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 01:54 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Daniel Thompson wrote: > > > Much of the code sitting in arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c to support > > safe all-cpu backtracing from NMI has been copied to printk.c to > > make it accessible to other architectures. > > > > Port the x86 NMI backtrace to the generic code. > > Is there any difference between the generic and the x86 code as they > stand today? Shouldn't be any user observable change but there are some changes, mostly due to review comments. 1. The seq_buf structures are initialized at boot and *after* they are consumed (originally they were initialized just before use). 2. The generic code doesn't maintain an equivalent of backtrace_mask (which was essentially a copy of cpus_online made when backtracing was requested) and instead iterates using for_each_possible_cpu() to initialize and dump the seq_buf:s. Daniel. PS The main piece that git code motion tracking should follow if I squashed the generic and x86 patches together would be nmi_vprintk(). I suspect most of the rest would be missed as the code copies is in pretty small fragments.