public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Cc: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git-pull -tip] x86: msr architecture debug code
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 15:08:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090305140809.GA27962@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090305135444.GB7347@alberich.amd.com>


* Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 09:54:37PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> Oops, didn't read this mail till the end.
> Thus I missed this part.
> 
> > > +{
> > > +	struct cpuinfo_x86 *cpu = &cpu_data(0);
> > > +
> > > +	if (!cpu_has(cpu, X86_FEATURE_MSR))
> > > +		return -ENODEV;
> > > +
> > > +	msr_dir = debugfs_create_dir("msr", arch_debugfs_dir);
> > > +
> > > +	msr_file = debugfs_create_file("msr", S_IRUGO, msr_dir,
> > > +					NULL, &msr_fops);
> > > +	pmc_file = debugfs_create_file("pmc", S_IRUGO, msr_dir,
> > > +					NULL, &pmc_fops);
> > 
> > I think it would be possible to have a much more intuitive file 
> > layout under /debug/x86/msr/ than these two /debug/x86/msr/msr 
> > and /debug/x86/msr/pmc files.
> > 
> > Firstly, it should move one level deeper, to /debug/x86/cpu/msr/ 
> > - because the MSR is really a property of the CPU, and there are 
> > other properties of the CPU we might want to expose in the 
> > future.
> > 
> > Secondly, the picking of debugfs (as opposed to sysfs) is a good 
> > choice, because we probably want to tweak the layout a number of 
> > times and want to keep flexibility, without being limited by the 
> > sysfs ABI.
> > 
> > So i like the idea - but we really want to do even more and add 
> > more structure to this. If we just want dumb msr enumeration we 
> > already have /dev/msr.
> > 
> > Regarding the msr directory: one good approach would be to have 
> > have several "topic" directories under /debug/x86/cpu/msr/.
> > 
> > One such topic would be the 'pmu', with a structure like:
> > 
> >  /debug/x86/cpu/msr/pmu/
> >  /debug/x86/cpu/msr/pmu/pmc_0/
> >  /debug/x86/cpu/msr/pmu/pmc_0/counter
> >  /debug/x86/cpu/msr/pmu/pmc_0/eventsel
> > 
> > There would also be a /debug/x86/cpu/msr/raw/ directory with all 
> > MSR numbers we know about explicitly, for example:
> > 
> >  /debug/x86/cpu/msr/raw/0x372/value
> >  /debug/x86/cpu/msr/raw/0x372/width
> 
> Having this stuff in the kernel unnecessarily bloats up kernel code.

it should be a default-off Kconfig option and it is in debugfs 
so there's no real bloat issue here.

> What the kernel needs to provide is a reliable interface to 
> access MSRs -- to pass the data to userspace. This interface 
> is already there.
> 
> IMHO all kind of parsing and grouping of that data belongs in 
> user space.
> 
> One exception are MSRs that need to be checked early during 
> boot (e.g. MTRRs). For debugging purposes you might want to 
> dump certain MSRs early. But then you will use printk and not 
> debugfs.

Well it's really nice to know the _kernel's_ enumeration of MSRs 
and its knowledge about the structure of those MSRs.

Sure, we can and do export the flat MSR space to user-space, but 
the kernel also enumerates them internally, in various places. 
The debugfs interface shows them in one way - and as such also 
acts as a central force to keep these things tidy.

a VFS namespace is also pretty educative. You can see which MSRs 
matter to the lapic for example, you can see their symbolic 
names, their current state, etc. etc.

> > Maybe a symlink pointing it back to the topic directory 
> > would be useful as well. For example:
> > 
> >  /debug/x86/cpu/msr/raw/0x372/topic_dir -> /debug/x86/cpu/msr/pmu/pmc_0/
> > 
> > Other "topic directories" are possible too: a 
> > /debug/x86/cpu/msr/apic/ layout would be very useful and 
> > informative as well, and so are some of the other MSRs we 
> > tweak during bootup.
> 
> All nice suggestions but why in-kernel?
> 
> Just hack some script to do this. This is much more 
> maintainable. You don't need a kernel update to add support 
> for new CPUs or to fix bugs in this code itself -- you just 
> have to tweak your script.

the kernel tends to know a lot about these MSRs already so we 
just provide that information in a more structured form as well.

Such more structured form, beyond the debugging and 
education/development advantages, also acts as a counter-force 
back to the MSR enumeration code of the kernel and makes them 
more structured. It will no doubt also extend the kernel's 
knowledge of MSRs - read-only MSRs we dont normally read.

There's also a few other things like the IRR readout in the APIC 
code or the perfcounters status dump can also be done cleanly 
via /debug/x86/cpu/msr/.

Eventually i'd like /debug/x86/ to become a full CPU state dump: 
the kernel pagetable dumping code could go there, we could show 
control registers, we could show the GDT and IDT settings and 
contents, etc. etc.

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2009-03-05 14:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-03-02 15:42 [git-pull -tip] x86: msr architecture debug code Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-02 17:25 ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-02 20:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-04 19:16   ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-04 20:49     ` [git-pull -tip V2] " Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-05 12:21       ` Andreas Herrmann
2009-03-05 13:10         ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-05 13:32         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-05 13:48           ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-05 14:11             ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-05 14:31               ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-05 13:54   ` [git-pull -tip] " Andreas Herrmann
2009-03-05 14:08     ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-03-05 17:01       ` Andreas Herrmann
2009-03-05 14:12     ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-05 14:37       ` Andreas Herrmann
2009-03-05 15:16         ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-05 15:47         ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-05 18:23           ` Andreas Herrmann
2009-03-05 18:40             ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-06 10:07               ` Andreas Herrmann

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090305140809.GA27962@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=andreas.herrmann3@amd.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jaswinder@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox