KernelTrap - debugger

Kgdb Light

Jeremy — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:08:48 +0000

"While this is probably one of the last days of the merge window, please still consider pulling the 'kgdb light' git tree," began Ingo Molnar, explaining:

"This is a slimmed-down and cleaned up version of KGDB that i've created out of the original patches that we submitted two weeks ago. I went over the kgdb patches with Thomas and we cut out everything that we did not like, and cleaned up the result. KGDB is still just as functional as it was before (i tested it on 32-bit and 64-bit x86) - and any desired extra capability or complexity should be added as a delta improvement, not in this initial merge."

Ingo noted that the previous merge request modified 41 files, while this new merge request modifies only 22 files. Among the changes, he highlighted, "removed _all_ critical path impact, even if KGDB is enabled and active; removed all the lowlevel serial drivers; added a redesigned and cleaned up version of the 'KGDB over polled consoles' approach; removed the longjump code; removed the module symbol hacks; removed the GTOD/clocksource hacks; removed the softlockup hacks; removed the toplevel Makefile changes; removed the might_sleep scheduler hack; and did lots of other cleanups and rewrites as well." Ingo summarized, "as a result, this kgdb series has _obviously_ zero impact on the kernel, because it just does not touch any dangerous codepath. From this point on KGDB can evolve in small, well-controlled baby steps, as all other kernel code as well. And the resulting kgdb is still very functional: it can still break into a kernel (via SysRq-G), can catch crashes, can single-step, etc. It's already a quite usable first step."

kgdb, To Merge Or Not To Merge

Jeremy — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:03:15 +0000

It was recently pointed out that most of the x86 architecture patches had been merged into the mainline 2.6.25 kernel, except for the kgdb patches. Linus Torvalds replied, "I won't even consider pulling it unless it's offered as a separate tree, not mixed up with other things. At that point I can give a look." He continued:

"That said, I explained to Ingo why I'm not particularly interested in it. I don't think that 'developer-centric' debugging is really even remotely our problem, and that I'm personally a lot more interested in infrastructure that helps normal users give better bug-reports. And kgdb isn't even _remotely_ it.

"So I'd merge a patch that puts oops information (or the whole console printout) in the Intel management stuff in a heartbeat. That code is likely much grottier than any kgdb thing will ever be (Intel really screwed up the interface and made it some insane XML thing), but it's also fundamentally more important - if it means that normal users can give oops reports after they happened in X (or, these days, probably more commonly during suspend/resume) and the machine just died."

x86 Architecture Merges in 2.6.25

Jeremy — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:36:31 +0000

Ingo Molnar summarized his pull request for changes to the x86 architecture bound for mainline inclusion in 2.6.25 noting, "it's not a small merge, it consists of 908 commits from 96 individual arch/x86 developers (!)". He continued, "a number of core files are changed as well: most notably percpu, debugging details, timers, the firewire remote debugging patch and ... the KGDB remote debugging stub in kernel/kgdb.c." He went on to detail the extent of the testing this tree has received, "in the past few weeks tens of thousands of random x86.git bzImages were successfully built and booted on a number of (commodity) 32-bit and
64-bit testsystems - and there has been a fair amount of test exposure on -mm as well." Regarding the remote kernel debugger, Ingo explained:

"We tested KGDB to be merge-worthy within the x86 architecture (the only supported architecture for now) and it's better to have kernel/kgdb.c than arch/x86/kernel/kgdb.c. The code is reasonably clean and the user-space exposure is small - the only real exposure is the decades-old remote GDB protocol. We are happy to fix up any further cleanliness comments that people might have - but we really wanted to start somewhere and get this thing moving. As an added bonus: finally a kernel debugger that can be read without puking too much ;-) [anyone remember KDB?]"

KGDB Merge Postponed Until 2.6.25

Jeremy — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:37:11 +0000

"This is a request to merge KGDB into the mainline kernel," Jason Wessel announced, posting a series of patches aiming toward that goal. He continued, "as of right now KGDB is comprised of 21 different patches adding in the core api and docs first and then working up to add drivers and arch specific support to KGDB. The patches were broken down into logical pieces for review and comments." He went on to explain:

"The intent of the KGDB patches is to unify the KGDB support across all the architectures that elect to implement the KGDB functionality by providing a common core and an arch specific stub. For quite some time there has been different features and uses of KGDB across the most popular architectures. Having a common core that takes care of protocol parsing and the typical use case of software breakpoints should eliminate the inconsistencies across the archs as well as making it easier to add KGDB support to a new arch."

Andrew Morton, who has been supportive of getting a kernel debugger into the mainline kernel, explained that it was too late in the 2.6.24 review cycle to merge KGDB, meaning it would have to wait for 2.6.25 at the earliest, "this won't work very well. There's a lot of review work to be done here, and a lot of it by busy architecture maintainers. Expecting people to do all this review and test work late in the merge window when they're all madly scrambling to get their bugs^Wpatches into mainline is not reasonable. This should all have started a month ago. So we're looking at a 2.6.25 merge for this work."