Re: [V3 PATCH 1/2] x86/panic: Replace smp_send_stop() with kdump friendly version

['Dave Young']

Hi, 
On 07/19/16 at 05:51am, æåèå / KAWAIïHIDEHIRO wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > From: 'Dave Young' [mailto:dyoung@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 6:02 PM
> > On 07/15/16 at 11:50am, æåèå / KAWAIïHIDEHIRO wrote:
> > > Hi Dave,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your reply.
> > >
> > > > From: 'Dave Young' [mailto:dyoung@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 11:04 AM
> > > >
> > > > On 07/12/16 at 02:49am, æåèå / KAWAIïHIDEHIRO wrote:
> > > > > Hi Dave,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the comments.
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: Dave Young [mailto:dyoung@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 5:35 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 07/05/16 at 08:33pm, Hidehiro Kawai wrote:
> [snip] 
> > > > > > As for this patch I'm not sure it is safe to replace the
> > > > > > smp_send_stop with the kdump friendly function. I'm also not sure if
> > > > > > the kdump friendly function is safe for kdump. Will glad to hear
> > > > > > opinions from other arch experts.
> > > > >
> > > > > This stuff depends on architectures, so I speak only about
> > > > > x86 (the logic doesn't change on other architectures at this time).
> > > > >
> > > > > kdump path with crash_kexec_post_notifiers disabled:
> > > > >  panic()
> > > > >    __crash_kexec()
> > > > >      crash_setup_regs()
> > > > >      crash_save_vmcoreinfo()
> > > > >      machine_crash_shutdown()
> > > > >        native_machine_crash_shutdown()
> > > > >          panic_smp_send_stop() /* mostly same as original
> > > > >                                 * kdump_nmi_shootdown_cpus()
> > > > >                                 */
> > > > >
> > > > > kdump path with crash_kexec_post_notifiers enabled:
> > > > >  panic()
> > > > >    panic_smp_send_stop()
> > > > >    __crash_kexec()
> > > > >      crash_setup_regs()
> > > > >      crash_save_vmcoreinfo()
> > > > >      machine_crash_shutdown()
> > > > >        native_machine_crash_shutdown()
> > > > >          panic_smp_send_stop() // do nothing
> > > > >
> > > > > The difference is that stopping other CPUs before crash_setup_regs()
> > > > > and crash_save_vmcoreinfo() or not.  Since crash_setup_regs() and
> > > > > crash_save_vmcoreinfo() just save information to some memory area,
> > > > > they wouldn't be affected by panic_smp_send_stop().  This means
> > > > > placing panic_smp_send_stop before __crash_kexec is safe.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, I noticed my patch breaks Xen kernel.  I'll fix it in the next
> > > > > version.
> > > >
> > > > But it does breaks stuff which depends on cpu not being disabled like problem 1 you mentioned in patch log.
> > >
> > > As I mentioned in the description of this patch, we should stop
> > > other CPUs ASAP to preserve current state either
> > > crash_kexec_post_notifiers is enabled or not.
> > > Then, all remaining procedures should work well
> > > after stopping other CPUs (but keep the CPU map online).
> > >
> > > Vivek also mentioned similar things:
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/14/433
> > 
> > The implementation in this patchset is different from suggestion in above link?
> > 
> > I think Vivek's suggestion is a good idea, to drop smp_send_stop and do below:
> > 
> > stop_cpus_save_register_state;
> > 
> > if (!crash_kexec_post_notifiers)
> > 	crash_kexec()
> > atomic_notifier_call_chain()
> > kmsg_dump()
> > 
> > I'm just commenting from code flow point of view, the detail implementation
> > definitely need more comments from Arch experts.
> > 
> > Any reason did not move the kdump friendly function to earlier point like
> > before previous __crash_kexec() below?
> >         if (!crash_kexec_post_notifiers) {
> >                 printk_nmi_flush_on_panic();
> >                 __crash_kexec(NULL);
> >         }
> 
> The reason why the implementation differs from Vivek's is to keep
> the current code flow if crash_kexec_post_notifiers is not specified.
> 
> If we apply Vivek's or your suggestion, it may always cause kdump
> to fail on MIPS OCTEON due to Problem 1.  I don't want to make things
> any worse.  I may post a patch for MIPS OCTEON, but I can't test it.
> For other architectures, I'm not sure what problems there are.
> So at first, I want to fix the case where crash_kexec_post_notifiers is
> specified on x86.  Then, if all other architectures support
> `stop other CPUs before crash_kexec', switch to your or Vivek's
> suggesting code.
> 
> Is this acceptable?

Maybe you can find someone who can test MIPS OCTEON so that they can give
some thoughts first and maybe test a fix?

[dyoung@localhost linux]$ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f arch/mips/cavium-octeon
Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (supporter:MIPS,commit_signer:32/35=91%)
David Daney <david.daney@xxxxxxxxxx> (commit_signer:21/35=60%,authored:8/35=23%)
Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@xxxxxx> (commit_signer:15/35=43%,authored:8/35=23%)
Janne Huttunen <janne.huttunen@xxxxxxxxx>
(commit_signer:7/35=20%,authored:7/35=20%)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (commit_signer:4/35=11%,authored:2/35=6%)
linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:MIPS)
linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list)

Thanks
Dave