RE: [RFC][PATCH -next] make pstore/kmsg_dump run after stoppingother cpus in panic path

[Seiji Aguchi]

Hi,

I agree with Tony's concern.
But as Don told,  the best way to go proceed is fixing backend drivers step by step.

Seiji


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Don Zickus [mailto:dzickus@xxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 1:22 PM
>To: Luck, Tony
>Cc: Seiji Aguchi; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Matthew Garrett; Vivek Goyal; Chen, Gong; Andrew Morton; Brown, Len; Huang,
>Ying; ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hughd@xxxxxxxxxxxx; mingo@xxxxxxx; jmorris@xxxxxxxxx; a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx;
>namhyung@xxxxxxxxx; dle-develop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Satoru Moriya
>Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -next] make pstore/kmsg_dump run after stopping other cpus in panic path
>
>On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 09:56:50AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> > All this lock busting probably isn't pretty and causes one to reflect what
>> > is going on here.  But as long as we are going to keep the kmsg_dump
>> > design, changes like this seem necessary to make sure the locking stays
>> > sane(r) for now.
>>
>> So should we let the back-end know that locks have been busted?  I worry
>> that we'll get through the pstore layer by blasting away at any locks that
>> get in our way - but then the backend (which may well have been written on
>> the assumption that pstore serialized calls to it) will not do anything
>> useful (and may cause its own hang).
>
>I was kinda alluding to something like that, when I said we probably need
>follow on patches to clean up the backend.  But maybe it would be smarter
>to set a flag in pstore to let the backend know we busted the locks
>instead of letting them do panic checks themselves.  I agree with your
>concerns.
>
>I really can't think of a good overall solution other than slowly
>step-by-step untangle things by making subtle changes, this round being
>the serialization of kmsg_dump().
>
>My brain is to small to figure this out.  I keep thinking about making an
>ascii art diagram to see all the various paths and their contexts, but
>then I keep finding more interesting things to do. :-)
>
>Perhaps we should do that and make some rules about what the back-end can
>and can not do when plugging into kmsg_dump.
>
>Cheers,
>Don

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/