On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 at 08:36, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 08/20/2018 03:22 PM, Kim Phillips wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:03:03 +0100 > > Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 08/16/2018 08:28 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > >>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 09:28, Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 10:39:13 +0100 > >>>> Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 01:42:27PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > >>>>>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 11:09, Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>> The other thing that's going on here is that I'm becoming numb to the > >>>>>>> loathsome "failed to mmap with 12 (Cannot allocate memory)" being > >>>>>>> returned no matter what the error is/was. E.g., an error that would > >>>>>>> indicate a sense of non-implementation would be much better > >>>>>>> appreciated than presumably what the above is doing, i.e., returning > >>>>>>> -ENOMEM. That, backed up with specific details in the form of human > >>>>>>> readable text in dmesg would be *most* welcome. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As part of the refactoring of the code to support CPU-wide scenarios I > >>>>>> intend to emit better diagnostic messages from the driver. Modifying > >>>>>> rb_alloc_aux() to propagate the error message generated by the > >>>>>> architecture specific PMUs doesn't look hard either and I _may_ get to > >>>>>> it as part of this work. > >>>>> > >>>>> For the record, I will continue to oppose PMU drivers that dump diagnostics > >>>>> about user-controlled input into dmesg, but the coresight drivers are yours > >>>>> so it's up to you and I won't get in the way! > >>>> > >>>> That sounds technically self-contradicting to me. Why shouldn't > >>>> coresight share the same policies as those used for PMU drivers? Or > >>>> why not allow the individual vendor PMU driver authors control the > >>>> level of user-friendliness of their own drivers? > >>>> > >>>> That being said, Matheiu, would you accept patches that make coresight > >>>> more verbose in dmesg? > >>> > >>> It depends on the issue you're hoping to address. I'd rather see the > >>> root cause of the problem fixed than adding temporary code. Suzuki > >>> added the ETR perf API and I'm currently working on CPU-wide > >>> scenarios. From there and with regards to what can happen in > >>> setup_aux(), we should have things covered. > >> > >> I think the main issue is the lack of error code propagation from > >> setup_aux() back to the perf_aux_output_handle_begin(), which always > >> return -ENOMEM. If we fix that, we could get better idea of whats > >> wrong. > > > > Why get a better idea when we can get the exact details? > > The different values for error numbers are there for a reason... > > > > >> If someone is planning to add verbose messages, they may do so by adding > >> dev_dbg() / pr_debug(), which can be turned on as and when needed. > > > > I disagree: that just adds another usage and kernel configuration > > obstacle. Why not use pr_err straight up? I think everything on this topic has been said already. As I remarked earlier once I'm done with CPU-wide support we shouldn't need detailed error reporting. Everything should be handled via error code propagation and that is what I'd like to see addressed in the first place. From there we can think about individual error cases as they come up. > > I personally don't agree to usage of pr_err() in paths which are easily > triggered from user input. Also, we are moving all the "debugging" > messages to the dynamic debug, to prevent lockdep splats. A slight correction here - we are moving most of the framework error reporting to dynamic debug because they clog the log file and aren't useful outside of a development context. It is not a remedy for the negative interaction between event locking and console access generated by the framework's reporting of device status as a path is built/enabled/disabled. > > Suzuki
