Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/numa: instance all parsed numa node
From: Pingfan Liu
Date: Tue Jul 09 2019 - 00:26:50 EST
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:53 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 2019, at 3:35 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 8 Jul 2019, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:44 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> >>>> I hit a bug on an AMD machine, with kexec -l nr_cpus=4 option. nr_cpus option
> >>>> is used to speed up kdump process, so it is not a rare case.
> >>> But fundamentally wrong, really.
> >>> The rest of the CPUs are in a half baken state and any broadcast event,
> >>> e.g. MCE or a stray IPI, will result in a undiagnosable crash.
> >> Very appreciate if you can pay more word on it? I tried to figure out
> >> your point, but fail.
> >> For "a half baked state", I think you concern about LAPIC state, and I
> >> expand this point like the following:
> > It's not only the APIC state. It's the state of the CPUs in general.
> >> For IPI: when capture kernel BSP is up, the rest cpus are still loop
> >> inside crash_nmi_callback(), so there is no way to eject new IPI from
> >> these cpu. Also we disable_local_APIC(), which effectively prevent the
> >> LAPIC from responding to IPI, except NMI/INIT/SIPI, which will not
> >> occur in crash case.
> > Fair enough for the IPI case.
> >> For MCE, I am not sure whether it can broadcast or not between cpus,
> >> but as my understanding, it can not. Then is it a problem?
> > It can and it does.
> > That's the whole point why we bring up all CPUs in the 'nosmt' case and
> > shut the siblings down again after setting CR4.MCE. Actually that's in fact
> > a 'let's hope no MCE hits before that happened' approach, but that's all we
> > can do.
> > If we don't do that then the MCE broadcast can hit a CPU which has some
> > firmware initialized state. The result can be a full system lockup, triple
> > fault etc.
> > So when the MCE hits a CPU which is still in the crashed kernel lala state,
> > then all hell breaks lose.
> >> From another view point, is there any difference between nr_cpus=1 and
> >> nr_cpus> 1 in crashing case? If stray IPI raises issue to nr_cpus>1,
> >> it does for nr_cpus=1.
> > Anything less than the actual number of present CPUs is problematic except
> > you use the 'let's hope nothing happens' approach. We could add an option
> > to stop the bringup at the early online state similar to what we do for
> > 'nosmt'.
> How about we change nr_cpus to do that instead so we never have to have this conversation again?
Are you interest in implementing this?