[PATCH 3.18-rc3 v9 5/5] arm: smp: Handle ipi_cpu_backtrace() using FIQ (if available)

[tim@krieglstein.org (Tim Sander)]

Hi Russel, Daniel

Am Freitag, 28. November 2014, 10:08:28 schrieb Russell King - ARM Linux:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:10:04AM +0100, Tim Sander wrote:
> > Hi Daniel, Russell
> > 
> > Am Mittwoch, 26. November 2014, 16:17:06 schrieb Daniel Thompson:
> > > On 26/11/14 13:12, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:46:52PM +0100, Tim Sander wrote:
> > > >> Hi Daniel
> > > >> 
> > > >> Am Dienstag, 25. November 2014, 17:26:41 schrieb Daniel Thompson:
> > > >>> Previous changes have introduced both a replacement default FIQ
> > > >>> handler
> > > >>> and an implementation of arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace for ARM but
> > > >>> these are currently independent of each other.
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> This patch plumbs together these features making it possible, on
> > > >>> platforms
> > > >>> that support it, to trigger backtrace using FIQ.
> > > >> 
> > > >> Does this ipi handler interfere in any way with set_fiq_handler?
> > > >> 
> > > >> As far as i know there is only one FIQ handler vector so i guess
> > > >> there is
> > > >> a
> > > >> potential conflict. But i have not worked with IPI's so i might be
> > > >> completley wrong.
> > > > 
> > > > First, the code in arch/arm/kernel/fiq.c should work with this new FIQ
> > > > code in that the new FIQ code is used as the "default" handler (as
> > > > opposed to the original handler which was a total no-op.)
> > > > 
> > > > Secondly, use of arch/arm/kernel/fiq.c in a SMP system is really not a
> > > > good idea: the FIQ registers are private to each CPU in the system,
> > > > and
> > > > there is no infrastructure to allow fiq.c to ensure that it loads the
> > > > right CPU with the register information for the provided handler.
> > 
> > Well given the races in the GIC v1. i have seen in the chips on my desk
> > initializing with for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) work_on_cpu(cpu,..) is rather
> > easy.
> > 
> > > > So, use of arch/arm/kernel/fiq.c and the IPI's use of FIQ /should/ be
> > > > mutually exclusive.
> > 
> > Yes but i digress on the assessment that this a decision between SMP and
> > non- SMP usage or the availbility of the GIC.
> 
> The two things are mutually exclusive.  You can either have FIQ being used
> for debug purposes, where we decode the FIQ reason and call some function
> (which means that we will only service one FIQ at a time) or you can use
> it in exclusive mode (provided by fiq.c) where your handler has sole usage
> of the vector, and benefits from fast and immediate servicing of the event.
As far as i am aware, die CONFIG_FIQ symbol is not pulled by all ARM 
platforms. Since there are ARM platforms which don't use this symbol but the 
hardware is fully capable of handling FIQ requests i would expect, that adding
CONFIG_FIQ to a plattform, that this platform honors the set_fiq_handler 
functionality. 
> You can't have fast and immediate servicing of the event _and_ debug usage
> at the same time.
> 
> > Well i am not against these features as they assumably improve the
> > backtrace, but it would be nice to have a config option which switches
> > between set_fiq_handler usage and the other conflicting usages of the
> > fiq.
> You have a config option already.  CONFIG_FIQ.
Yes, but if the FIQ handler is also used for IPI, set_fiq_handler gets IPI 
interrupts (with the patch starting this thread)? So i think that the patch 
needs to look like:
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/traps.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/traps.c
@@ -483,6 +483,9 @@ asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry 
handle_fiq_as_nmi(struct pt_regs *regs)
+#ifndef CONFIG_FIQ
 #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_GIC
        gic_handle_fiq_ipi();
 #endif
+#endif

As otherwise if the platform has CONFIG_SMP and CONFIG_FIQ and CONFIG_ARM_GIC 
the GIC will get reprogrammed to deliver FIQ's to the handler set by 
set_fiq_handler ?

Best regards
Tim