Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 09/16] genirq/irqdesc: Have nr_irqs as non-static

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 18.09.25 15:53, Eugen Hristev wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/18/25 11:23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 17 2025 at 21:03, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> As this is specific for the compiled kernel version you can define an
>>>> extensible struct format for the table.
>>>>
>>>> struct inspect_entry {
>>>> 	unsigned long	properties;
>>>>           unsigned int	type;
>>>>           unsigned int	id;
>>>>           const char	name[$MAX_NAME_LEN];
>>>> 	unsigned long	address;
>>>>           unsigned long	length;
>>>>           ....
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> @type
>>>>          refers either to a table with type information, which describes
>>>>          the struct in some way or just generate a detached compile time
>>>>          description.
>>>>
>>>> @id
>>>>          a unique id created at compile time or via registration at
>>>>          runtime. Might not be required
>>>
>>> We discussed that maybe one would want some kind of a "class"
>>> description. For example we might have to register one pgdat area per
>>> node. Giving each one a unique name might be impractical / unreasonable.
>>>
>>> Still, someone would want to select / filter out all entries of the same
>>> "class".
>>>
>>> Just a thought.
>>
>> Right. As I said this was mostly a insta brain dump to start a
>> discussion. Seems it worked :)
>>
>>>> @properties:
>>>>
>>>>           A "bitfield", which allows to mark this entry as (in)valid for a
>>>>           particular consumer.
>>>>
>>>>           That obviously requires to modify these properties when the
>>>>           requirements of a consumer change, new consumers arrive or new
>>>>           producers are added, but I think it's easier to do that at the
>>>>           producer side than maintaining filters on all consumer ends
>>>>           forever.
>>>
>>> Question would be if that is not up to a consumer to decide ("allowlist"
>>> / filter) by class or id, stored elsewhere.
>>
>> Yes, I looked at it the wrong way round. We should leave the filtering
>> to the consumers. If you use allow lists, then a newly introduced class
>> won't be automatically exposed everywhere.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>          tglx
> 
> 
> So, one direction to follow from this discussion is to have the
> inspection entry and inspection table for all these entries.
> Now, one burning question open for debate, is, should this reside into mm ?
> mm/inspect.h would have to define the inspection entry struct, and some
> macros to help everyone add an inspection entry.
> E.g. INSPECTION_ENTRY(my ptr, my size);
> and this would be used all over the kernel wherever folks want to
> register something.

If we're moving this to kernel/ or similar I'd suggest to not call this 
only "inspect" but something that somehow contains the term "mem".

"mem-inspect.h" ?


> Now the second part is, where to keep all the inspection drivers ?
> Would it make sense to have mm/inspection/inspection_helpers.h which
> would keep the table start/end, some macros to traverse the tables, and
> this would be included by the inspection drivers.
> inspection drivers would then probe via any mechanism, and tap into the
> inspection table.

Good question. I think some examples of alternatives might help to 
driver that discussion.

> I am thinking that my model with a single backend can be enhanced by
> allowing any inspection driver to access it. And further on, each
> inspection driver would register a notifier to be called when an entry
> is being created or not. This would mean N possible drivers connected to
> the table at the same time. ( if that would make sense...)

Yeah, I think some notifier mechanism is what we want.

> Would it make sense for pstore to have an inspection driver that would
> be connected here to get different kinds of stuff ?

Something for the pstore folks to answer :)

> Would it make sense to have some debugfs driver that would just expose
> to user space different regions ? Perhaps something similar with
> /proc/kcore but not the whole kernel memory rather only the exposed
> inspection entries.

Definetly, this is what I previously mentioned. Maybe we would only 
indicate region metadata and actual access to regions would simply 
happen through /proc/kcore if someone wants to dump data from user space.

> Now, for the dynamic memory, e.g. memblock_alloc and friends ,
> would it be interesting to have a flag e.g. MEMBLOCK_INSPECT, that would
> be used when calling it, and in the background, this would request an
> inspection_entry being created ? Or it makes more sense to call some
> function like inspect_register as a different call directly at the
> allocation point ?

We'd probably want some interface to define the metadata 
(name/class/whatever), a simple flag likely will not do, right?

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb