lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [V4 PATCH 2/2] mips/panic: Replace smp_send_stop() with kdump friendly version in panic path
From
Date
On 08/15/2016 12:06 PM, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On 08/15/2016 06:35 AM, 河合英宏 / KAWAI,HIDEHIRO wrote:
>> Hi Corey,
>>
>>> From: Corey Minyard [mailto:cminyard@mvista.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 10:56 PM
>>> I'll try to test this, but I have one comment inline...
>> Thank you very much!
>>
>>> On 08/11/2016 10:17 PM, Dave Young wrote:
>>>> On 08/10/16 at 05:09pm, Hidehiro Kawai wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/crash.c b/arch/mips/kernel/crash.c
>>>>> index 610f0f3..1723b17 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/mips/kernel/crash.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/crash.c
>>>>> @@ -47,9 +47,14 @@ static void crash_shutdown_secondary(void
>>>>> *passed_regs)
>>>>>
>>>>> static void crash_kexec_prepare_cpus(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + static int cpus_stopped;
>>>>> unsigned int msecs;
>>>>> + unsigned int ncpus;
>>>>>
>>>>> - unsigned int ncpus = num_online_cpus() - 1;/* Excluding the
>>>>> panic cpu */
>>>>> + if (cpus_stopped)
>>>>> + return;
>>> Wouldn't you want an atomic operation and some special handling here to
>>> ensure that only one CPU does this? So if a CPU comes in here and
>>> another CPU is already in the process stopping the CPUs it won't
>>> result in a
>>> deadlock.
>> Because this function can be called only one panicking CPU,
>> there is no problem.
>>
>> There are two paths which crash_kexec_prepare_cpus is called.
>>
>> Path 1 (panic path):
>> panic()
>> crash_smp_send_stop()
>> crash_kexec_prepare_cpus()
>>
>> Path 2 (oops path):
>> crash_kexec()
>> __crash_kexec()
>> machine_crash_shutdown()
>> default_machine_crash_shutdown() // for MIPS
>> crash_kexec_prepare_cpus()
>>
>> Here, panic() and crash_kexec() run exclusively via
>> panic_cpu atomic variable. So we can use cpus_stopped as
>> normal variable.
>
> Ok, if the code can only be entered once, what's the purpose of
> cpus_stopped?
> I guess that's what confused me. You are right, the panic_cpu atomic
> should
> keep this on a single CPU.

Never mind, I see the path through panic() where that is required. My
question
below still remains, though.

-corey

>
> Also, panic() will call panic_smp_self_stop() if it finds another CPU
> has already
> called panic, which will just spin with interrupts off by default. I
> didn't see a
> definition for it in MIPS, wouldn't it need to be overridden to avoid
> a deadlock?
>
> -corey
>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Hidehiro Kawai
>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:57    [W:0.043 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site