From: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
To: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
Cc: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
briannorris@chromium.org,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] debug: More properly delay for secondary CPUs
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:41:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1476470481-4879-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> (raw)
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 debugging only to print their stack crawls shortly after
the kdb> prompt was written.
It appears that other code with similar loops (like __spin_lock_debug)
adds an extra __delay(1) in there which makes it work better.
Presumably the __delay(1) is very safe. At least on modern ARM/ARM64
systems it will just do a CP15 instruction, which should be safe. On
older ARM systems it will fall back to an actual delay loop, or perhaps
another memory-mapped timer. On other platforms it must be safe too or
it wouldn't be used in __spin_lock_debug.
Note that we use __delay(100) instead of __delay(1) so we can get a
little closer to a more accurate timeout on systems where __delay() is
backed by a timer. It's better to have a more accurate timeout and the
only penalty is that we might wait an extra 99 "loops" before we enter
the debugger.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
---
kernel/debug/debug_core.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/debug/debug_core.c b/kernel/debug/debug_core.c
index 0874e2edd275..454150d98dbc 100644
--- a/kernel/debug/debug_core.c
+++ b/kernel/debug/debug_core.c
@@ -598,11 +598,11 @@ 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 = DIV_ROUND_UP(loops_per_jiffy * HZ, 100);
while (kgdb_do_roundup && --time_left &&
(atomic_read(&masters_in_kgdb) + atomic_read(&slaves_in_kgdb)) !=
online_cpus)
- cpu_relax();
+ __delay(100);
if (!time_left)
pr_crit("Timed out waiting for secondary CPUs.\n");
--
2.8.0.rc3.226.g39d4020
next reply other threads:[~2016-10-14 19:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-14 18:41 Douglas Anderson [this message]
2016-10-18 9:48 ` Daniel Thompson
2016-10-20 0:14 ` Andrew Morton
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=1476470481-4879-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org \
--to=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=briannorris@chromium.org \
--cc=daniel.thompson@linaro.org \
--cc=jason.wessel@windriver.com \
--cc=kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.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
Powered by JetHome