Re: KGDB 2.0.3 with fixes and development in ethernet interface

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:39:14AM +0530, Amit S. Kale wrote:
> On Thursday 22 Jan 2004 4:30 am, George Anzinger wrote:
> > Amit S. Kale wrote:
> > > On Sunday 18 Jan 2004 1:24 am, George Anzinger wrote:
> > >>Amit S. Kale wrote:
> > >>>On Saturday 17 Jan 2004 6:53 am, George Anzinger wrote:
> > >>>>>This seems to be needed (if I unselect CONFIG_KGDB_THREAD, I get
> > >>>>>compile error on x86-64).
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Amit, could you explain why this is an option?  It seems very useful
> > >>>> and not really too much code...
> > >>>
> > >>>It saves all registers before switch_to. It does that two times at
> > >>>present. Once (implicit) register save by gcc and an explicit register
> > >>>save in arch/<proc>/kernel/entry.S Second register save in kern_schedule
> > >>>generates a pt_regs structure which gdb can get all registers at once
> > >>>from. If it's omited, gdb has to figure out where gcc has saved
> > >>> registers from the non-standards code in switch_to, which it can't do
> > >>> correctly all the time.
> > >>>
> > >>>We can have a check for (a new variable) debugger_enabled before calling
> > >>>kern_schedule. That'll be add negligible overhead and will allow extra
> > >>>thread info to be saved only when a debugger is enabled. There will not
> > >>>be any need for CONFIG_KGDB_THREAD also.
> > >>
> > >>I don't seem to have such a problem with the mm kgdb.  No kern_schedule
> > >>there...
> > >
> > > Have you confirmed that you see correct values for all the registers? I
> > > had found some problems with gdb not being able to locate all the
> > > registers correctly. Explanation on the problem below:
> > >
> > > Besides getting gdb's fault there  is one more benefit of kern_schedule.
> > > All threads are shown by gdb as sleeping _at_ the place where schedule
> > > call is present: So instead of gdb showing all threads sleeping in
> > > __switch_to, it shows several functions. That's better than having to
> > > look at back trace of each thread to figure out what it is.
> >
> > The mm version of kgdb does this, but by lying to gdb during the info
> > thread command.  IMNSHO, the real way to do this is to process the info
> > thread output with an awk script, but I haven't done that just yet.  The
> > problem with lying to gdb is that it sometimes remembers...
> >
> > > This functionality is complemented by printing of thread names in 2.0.X
> > > kgdb info threads listing.
> >
> > as in the mm version.
> >
> > > Now back to gdb problem of not being able to locate registers.
> > > schedule results in code of this form:
> > >
> > > schedule:
> > > framesetup
> > > registers save
> > > ...
> > > ...
> > > save registers
> > > change esp
> > > call switchto
> > > restore registers
> > > ...
> >
> > I have not analyzed this as yet.  However, it does seem to me to be the
> > same problem as trying to bt through an interrupt frame.  The correct way
> > to do this is to build the dwarf frame descriptors.  I have done this for
> > the interrupt frame and intend to send said patch out in a day or so.
> 
> Great! I had to do it this ackward way:
[snip]
> Powerpc ->
>  	int irq, first = 1;
> +	unsigned long *lrptr;
> +	if (!(regs->msr & MSR_PR)) {
> +		/* Came in from the kernel. Save call link. */
> +		lrptr = (unsigned long *)(regs->gpr[1] + 4);
> +		*lrptr = regs->nip;
> +	}

Amit, this is broken and causes a lockup on my machine.  I haven't tried
to find the 'correct' way to do this, but in the next verion of the kgdb
patches can you please if 0 this section?  Thanks.

-- 
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/