Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 09/16] genirq/irqdesc: Have nr_irqs as non-static

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 17.09.25 17:32, Eugen Hristev wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/17/25 18:18, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 17.09.25 17:02, Eugen Hristev wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/17/25 17:46, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 17.09.25 16:10, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 17 2025 at 09:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>> On 17.09.25 07:43, Eugen Hristev wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/17/25 00:16, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>>>>> I pointed you to a solution for that and just because David does not
>>>>>>>> like it means that it's acceptable to fiddle in subsystems and expose
>>>>>>>> their carefully localized variables.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would have been great if we could have had that discussion in the
>>>>>> previous thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry. I was busy with other stuff and did not pay attention to that
>>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>> I understand, I'm busy with too much stuff such that sometimes it might
>>>> be good to interrupt me earlier: "David, nooo, you're all wrong"
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Some other subsystem wants to have access to this information. I agree
>>>>>> that exposing these variables as r/w globally is not ideal.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a nono in this case. We had bugs (long ago) where people fiddled
>>>>> with this stuff (I assume accidentally for my mental sanity sake) and
>>>>> caused really nasty to debug issues. C is a horrible language to
>>>>> encapsulate stuff properly as we all know.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, there is this ACCESS_PRIVATE stuff but it only works with structs
>>>> and relies on sparse IIRC.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I raised the alternative of exposing areas or other information through
>>>>>> simple helper functions that kmemdump can just use to compose whatever
>>>>>> it needs to compose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we really need that .section thingy?
>>>>>
>>>>> The section thing is simple and straight forward as it just puts the
>>>>> annotated stuff into the section along with size and id and I definitely
>>>>> find that more palatable, than sprinkling random functions all over the
>>>>> place to register stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, you can achieve the same thing with an accessor function. In case
>>>>> of nr_irqs there is already one: irq_get_nr_irqs(), but for places which
>>>>
>>>> Right, the challenge really is that we want the memory range covered by
>>>> that address, otherwise it would be easy.
>>>>
>>>>> do not expose the information already for real functional reasons adding
>>>>> such helpers just for this coredump muck is really worse than having a
>>>>> clearly descriptive and obvious annotation which results in the section
>>>>> build.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I'm mostly unhappy about the "#include <linux/kmemdump.h>" stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Guess it would all feel less "kmemdump" specific if we would just have a
>>>> generic way to tag/describe certain physical memory areas and kmemdump
>>>> would simply make use of that.
>>>
>>> The idea was to make "kmemdump" exactly this generic way to tag/describe
>>> the memory.
>>
>> That's probably where I got lost, after reading the cover letter
>> assuming that this is primarily to program kmemdump backends, which I
>> understood to just special hw/firmware areas, whereby kinfo acts as a
>> filter.
> 
> If there is a mechanism to tag all this memory, or regions, into a
> specific section, what we would do with it next ?
> It would have a purpose to be parsed and reused by different drivers,
> that would be able to actually use it.
> So there has a to be some kind of middleman, that holds onto this list
> of regions, manages it (unique id, add/remove), and allows certain
> drivers to use it.

Right, just someone that maintains the list and possibly allows 
traversing the list and possibly getting notifications on add/remove.

> Now it would be interesting to have different kind of drivers connect to
> it (or backends how I called them).
> One of these programs an internal table for the firmware to use.
> Another , writes information into a dedicated reserved-memory for the
> bootloader to use on the next soft reboot (memory preserved).
> I called this middleman kmemdump. But it can be named differently, and
> it can reside in different places in the kernel.
> But what I would like to avoid is to just tag all this memory and have
> any kind of driver connect to the table. That works, but it's quite
> loose on having control over the table. E.g. no kmemdump, tag all the
> memory to sections, and have specific drivers (that would reside where?)
> walk it.

Yeah, you want just some simple "registry" with traversal+notification.

> 
>>
>>> If we would call it differently , simply dump , would it be better ?
>>> e.g. include linux/dump.h
>>> and then DUMP(var, size) ?
>>>
>>> could we call it maybe MARK ? or TAG ?
>>> TAG_MEM(area, size)

Just because I thought about it again, "named memory" could be an 
alternative to "tagged memory".

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb