Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] perf: Add ioctl for PMU driver configuration
To:     Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@arm.com>
Cc:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>, ast@kernel.org,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, suzuki.poulosi@arm.com,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
References: <1531950487-24554-1-git-send-email-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
 <20180813124642.3d49c082a95fc294d926016e@arm.com>
 <CANLsYkx=tjCG-eb4qRoGz0SvG4qCMDz1ajR9Mo9VK5XTAn_WdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180814120910.ed225bbc462c58b09e5d68de@arm.com>
 <CANLsYkxZ_Wts6k9yqJhJf_R5oh74svpcuoNxhtFf6h3mz8U4ZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180815093912.GE2427@arm.com>
 <20180815102820.3520d0c3875d2fd82300cdef@arm.com>
 <CANLsYkz0j79+1C-Amz=3+7zw-0VZhnZ+rp5WAjHduEp+WjFs8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <18fe78a3-9a58-cecd-ddb9-d46cbc473b95@arm.com>
 <20180820092252.32dd015afcc5cbf2fe4c7ab7@arm.com>
From:   Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Message-ID: <a2edfae3-302e-bbc7-0563-337186fc2919@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Aug 2018 15:36:47 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180820092252.32dd015afcc5cbf2fe4c7ab7@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 08/20/2018 03:22 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:03:03 +0100
> Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 08/16/2018 08:28 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 09:28, Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 10:39:13 +0100
>>>> Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> 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@arm.com> 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 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.

Suzuki