On Wed 29-07-15 09:09:18, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote: > > From: Michal Hocko [mailto:mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx] > > On Wed 29-07-15 05:48:47, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > From: linux-kernel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hidehiro Kawai > > > > (2015/07/27 23:34), Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On Mon 27-07-15 10:58:50, Hidehiro Kawai wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > The check could be also relaxed a bit and nmi_panic would > > > > > return only if the ongoing panic is the current cpu when we really have > > > > > to return and allow the preempted panic to finish. > > > > > > > > It's reasonable. I'll do that in the next version. > > > > > > I noticed atomic_read() is insufficient. Please consider the following > > > scenario. > > > > > > CPU 1: call panic() in the normal context > > > CPU 0: call nmi_panic(), check the value of panic_cpu, then call panic() > > > CPU 1: set 1 to panic_cpu > > > CPU 0: fail to set 0 to panic_cpu, then do an infinite loop > > > CPU 1: call crash_kexec(), then call kdump_nmi_shootdown_cpus() > > > > > > At this point, since CPU 0 loops in NMI context, it never executes > > > the NMI handler registered by kdump_nmi_shootdown_cpus(). This means > > > that no register states are saved and no cleanups for VMX/SVM are > > > performed. > > > > Yes this is true but it is no different from the current state, isn't > > it? So if you want to handle that then it deserves a separate patch. > > It is certainly not harmful wrt. panic behavior. > > > > > So, we should still use atomic_cmpxchg() in nmi_panic() to > > > prevent other cpus from running panic routines. > > > > Not sure what you mean by that. > > I mean that we should use the same logic as my V2 patch like this: > > #define nmi_panic(fmt, ...) \ > do { \ > if (atomic_cmpxchg(&panic_cpu, -1, raw_smp_processor_id()) \ > == -1) \ > panic(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ > } while (0) This would allow to return from NMI too eagerly. When I was testing my previous approach (on 3.0 based kernel) I had basically the same thing (one NMI to process panic) and others to return. This led to a strange behavior when the NMI button triggered NMI on all (hundreds) CPUs. The crash kernel booted eventually but the log contained lockups when a CPU waited for an IPI to the CPU which was handling the NMI panic. Anyway, I do not thing this is really necessary to solve the panic reentrancy issue. If the missing saved state is a real problem then it should be handled separately - maybe it can be achieved without an IPI and directly from the panic context if we are in NMI. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
