lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v21 2/7] crash: add generic infrastructure for crash hotplug support
From

On 06/04/23 21:40, Eric DeVolder wrote:
>
>
> On 4/6/23 06:04, Baoquan He wrote:
>> On 04/04/23 at 02:03pm, Eric DeVolder wrote:
>> ......
>>> +static void crash_handle_hotplug_event(unsigned int hp_action,
>>> unsigned int cpu)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct kimage *image;
>>> +
>>> +    /* Obtain lock while changing crash information */
>>> +    if (!kexec_trylock()) {
>>> +        pr_info("kexec_trylock() failed, elfcorehdr may be
>>> inaccurate\n");
>>> +        return;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    /* Check kdump is not loaded */
>>> +    if (!kexec_crash_image)
>>> +        goto out;
>>> +
>>> +    image = kexec_crash_image;
>>> +
>>> +    if (hp_action == KEXEC_CRASH_HP_ADD_CPU ||
>>> +        hp_action == KEXEC_CRASH_HP_REMOVE_CPU)
>>> +        pr_debug("hp_action %u, cpu %u\n", hp_action, cpu);
>>> +    else
>>> +        pr_debug("hp_action %u\n", hp_action);
>>
>> Seems we passed in the cpu number just for printing here. Wondering why
>> we don't print out hot added/removed memory ranges. Is the cpu number
>> printing necessary?
>>
> Baoquan,
>
> Ah, actually until recently it was used to track the 'offlinecpu' in
> this function, but tglx pointed out that was un-necessary. That
> resulted in dropping the code in this function dealing with
> offlinecpu, leaving this as its only use in this function.
>
> The printing of cpu number is not necessary, but helpful; I use it for
> debugging.
>
> The printing of memory range is also not necessary, but in order to do
> that, should we choose to do so, requires passing in the memory range
> to this function. This patch series did do this early on, and by v7 I
> dropped it at your urging
> (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220401183040.1624-1-eric.devolder@oracle.com/).
> At the time, I provided it since I considered this generic
> infrastructure, but I could not defend it since x86 didn't need it.
> However, PPC now needs this, and is now carrying this as part of PPC
> support of CRASH_HOTPLUG
> (https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20230312181154.278900-6-sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com/T/#u).
>
> If you'd rather I pickup the memory range handling again, I can do
> that. I think I'd likely change this function to be:
>
>   void crash_handle_hotplug_event(unsigned int hp_action, unsigned int
> cpu,
>      struct memory_notify *mhp);
>
> where on a CPU op the 'cpu' parameter would be valid and 'mhp' NULL,
> and on a memory op,
> the 'mhp' would be valid and 'cpu' parameter invalid(0).
>
> I'd likely then stuff these two parameters into struct kimage so that
> it can be utilized by arch-specific handler, if needed.
>
> And of course, would print out the memory range for debug purposes.

I think passing memory_notify as parameter is a better approach compare
to adding the
same into struct kimage. Because once the crash hotplug event is served
the memory_notify
object is not useful.

- Sourabh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-04-12 10:59    [W:0.182 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site