Register the debugfs node 'efi_page_tables' to allow the UEFI runtime
page tables to be inspected. Note that ARM does not have 'asm/ptdump.h'
[yet] so for now, this is arm64 only.
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <redacted>
---
This patch could be helpful in assessing the series 'arm64: avoid block
entries that we need to split later' that I sent out yesterday.
drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c
index 17ccf0a8787a..4197a1da013d 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c
@@ -39,6 +39,26 @@ static struct mm_struct efi_mm = {
.mmlist = LIST_HEAD_INIT(efi_mm.mmlist),
};
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
+#include <asm/ptdump.h>
+
+static struct ptdump_info efi_ptdump_info = {
+ .mm = &efi_mm,
+ .markers = (struct addr_marker[]){
+ { 0, "UEFI runtime start" },
+ { TASK_SIZE_64, "UEFI runtime end" }
+ },
+ .base_addr = 0,
+};
+
+static int __init ptdump_init(void)
+{
+ return ptdump_register(&efi_ptdump_info, "efi_page_tables");
+}
+device_initcall(ptdump_init);
+
+#endif
+
static bool __init efi_virtmap_init(void)
{
efi_memory_desc_t *md;--
2.7.4
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:01:46PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
Register the debugfs node 'efi_page_tables' to allow the UEFI runtime
page tables to be inspected. Note that ARM does not have 'asm/ptdump.h'
[yet] so for now, this is arm64 only.
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <redacted>
---
This patch could be helpful in assessing the series 'arm64: avoid block
entries that we need to split later' that I sent out yesterday.
It's probably worth noting that this is based on the arm64 for-next/core
branch. I don't know if/how we can orgnise branches for merging this.
quoted hunk
drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c
index 17ccf0a8787a..4197a1da013d 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c
@@ -39,6 +39,26 @@ static struct mm_struct efi_mm = {
.mmlist = LIST_HEAD_INIT(efi_mm.mmlist),
};
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
If you use CONFIG_ARM64_PTDUMP for the moment, then we won't have some
unused structs lying around when the feature is unused.
Otherwise, I agree that this is a useful debuging feature. FWIW, either
way:
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Thanks,
Mark.
+#include <asm/ptdump.h>
+
+static struct ptdump_info efi_ptdump_info = {
+ .mm = &efi_mm,
+ .markers = (struct addr_marker[]){
+ { 0, "UEFI runtime start" },
+ { TASK_SIZE_64, "UEFI runtime end" }
+ },
+ .base_addr = 0,
+};
+
+static int __init ptdump_init(void)
+{
+ return ptdump_register(&efi_ptdump_info, "efi_page_tables");
+}
+device_initcall(ptdump_init);
+
+#endif
+
static bool __init efi_virtmap_init(void)
{
efi_memory_desc_t *md;
--
2.7.4
On 30 June 2016 at 16:09, Mark Rutland [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:01:46PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
quoted
Register the debugfs node 'efi_page_tables' to allow the UEFI runtime
page tables to be inspected. Note that ARM does not have 'asm/ptdump.h'
[yet] so for now, this is arm64 only.
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <redacted>
---
This patch could be helpful in assessing the series 'arm64: avoid block
entries that we need to split later' that I sent out yesterday.
It's probably worth noting that this is based on the arm64 for-next/core
branch. I don't know if/how we can orgnise branches for merging this.
There's no rush, so Matt can take it for v4.9 I suppose?
quoted
drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c
index 17ccf0a8787a..4197a1da013d 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c
@@ -39,6 +39,26 @@ static struct mm_struct efi_mm = {
.mmlist = LIST_HEAD_INIT(efi_mm.mmlist),
};
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
If you use CONFIG_ARM64_PTDUMP for the moment, then we won't have some
unused structs lying around when the feature is unused.
I can change that
Otherwise, I agree that this is a useful debuging feature. FWIW, either
way:
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Thanks.