diff mbox

[1/2] arm: Fix "NMI" backtrace for Inforce IFC6410

Message ID 1450285686-844-2-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Daniel Thompson Dec. 16, 2015, 5:08 p.m. UTC
SysRq-L does not generate a backtrace from all CPUs when I test it
on my Inforce IFC6410 platform (Snapdragon 600). The stack dump code,
triggered by IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE, never runs on the other CPUs.
Eventually we hit the 10 second timeout and a subset of the expected
stack dumps on are shown on the console.

It is likely this is because SGI IDs 14 and 15 have been reserved for
use by secure world on this platform. For IFC6410 platform the code
works as expected when IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE is set to any value in the
interval 9..13.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/kernel/smp.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Marc Zyngier Dec. 18, 2015, 8:58 a.m. UTC | #1
On 16/12/15 17:08, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> SysRq-L does not generate a backtrace from all CPUs when I test it
> on my Inforce IFC6410 platform (Snapdragon 600). The stack dump code,
> triggered by IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE, never runs on the other CPUs.
> Eventually we hit the 10 second timeout and a subset of the expected
> stack dumps on are shown on the console.
> 
> It is likely this is because SGI IDs 14 and 15 have been reserved for
> use by secure world on this platform. For IFC6410 platform the code
> works as expected when IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE is set to any value in the
> interval 9..13.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm/kernel/smp.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> index b26361355dae..78205927fcd4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -73,7 +73,8 @@ enum ipi_msg_type {
>  	IPI_CPU_STOP,
>  	IPI_IRQ_WORK,
>  	IPI_COMPLETION,
> -	IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE = 15,
> +	IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE = 13,
> +	/* 14 and 15 are reserved; they do not work on some Krait CPUs */
>  };
>  
>  static DECLARE_COMPLETION(cpu_running);
> 

It looks to me that we're just moving the goal posts and keep using a
SGI that is likely to be reserved by the secure side. Quoting the GIC spec:

In any system that implements the ARM Security Extensions, to support a
consistent model for message passing between processors, ARM strongly
recommends that all processors reserve:
* ID0-ID7 for Non-secure interrupts
* ID8-ID15 for Secure interrupts.

Of course, this is only a recommendation, but it is one that is likely
to be followed...

Now, we are already using our 8 "non-secure" SGIs, but we can
immediately reclaim one (IPI_CALL_FUNC_SINGLE is not that useful
anymore). I'll cook a patch for that.

Thanks,

	M.
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
index b26361355dae..78205927fcd4 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
@@ -73,7 +73,8 @@  enum ipi_msg_type {
 	IPI_CPU_STOP,
 	IPI_IRQ_WORK,
 	IPI_COMPLETION,
-	IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE = 15,
+	IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE = 13,
+	/* 14 and 15 are reserved; they do not work on some Krait CPUs */
 };
 
 static DECLARE_COMPLETION(cpu_running);