On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 05:04:57AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Michael Holzheu <holzheu at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
> > Hello Eric,
> >
> > On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 10:07 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> So my second thought is to introduce another atomic variable
> >> panic_in_progress, visible only in panic. The cpu that sets
> >> increments panic_in_progress can call smp_send_stop. The rest of
> >> the cpus can just go into a busy wait. That should stop nasty
> >> fights about who is going to come out of smp_send_stop first.
> >
> > So this is a spinlock, no? What about the following patch:
> Do we want both panic printks?
>
I guess having printk() from from both the panics would be nice.
> We really only need the mutual exclusion starting just before
> smp_send_stop so that is where I would be inclined to put it.
>
How about something just before crash_kexec()? I think there is not
much point two cpus trying to execute crash_kexec() together.
Thanks
Vivek
> But yeah something like the below should work.
>
> Eric
>
>
> > ---
> > kernel/panic.c | 7 ++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > --- a/kernel/panic.c
> > +++ b/kernel/panic.c
> > @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(panic_blink);
> > */
> > NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt, ...)
> > {
> > + static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(panic_lock);
> > static char buf[1024];
> > va_list args;
> > long i, i_next = 0;
> > @@ -68,8 +69,12 @@ NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt,
> > * It's possible to come here directly from a panic-assertion and
> > * not have preempt disabled. Some functions called from here want
> > * preempt to be disabled. No point enabling it later though...
> > + *
> > + * Only one CPU is allowed to execute the panic code. For multiple
> > + * parallel invocations of panic all other CPUs will wait on the
> > + * panic_lock. They are stopped afterwards by smp_send_stop().
> > */
> > - preempt_disable();
> > + spin_lock(&panic_lock);
> >
> > console_verbose();
> > bust_spinlocks(1);
