RE: [PATCH v2] panic: call panic handlers before panic_other_cpus_shutdown()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



From: Hamza Mahfooz <hamzamahfooz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 6:49 AM
> 
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 11:01:09PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> > From: Hamza Mahfooz <hamzamahfooz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, February
> 21, 2025 1:31 PM
> > >
> > > Since, the panic handlers may require certain cpus to be online to panic
> > > gracefully, we should call them before turning off SMP. Without this
> > > re-ordering, on Hyper-V hv_panic_vmbus_unload() times out, because the
> > > vmbus channel is bound to VMBUS_CONNECT_CPU and unless the crashing cpu
> > > is the same as VMBUS_CONNECT_CPU, VMBUS_CONNECT_CPU will be offlined by
> > > crash_smp_send_stop() before the vmbus channel can be deconstructed.
> >
> > Hamza -- what specifically is the problem with the way vmbus_wait_for_unload()
> > works today? That code is aware of the problem that the unload response comes
> > only on the VMBUS_CONNECT_CPU, and that cpu may not be able to handle
> > the interrupt. So the code polls the message page of each CPU to try to get the
> > unload response message. Is there a scenario where that approach isn't working?
> >
> 
> It doesn't work on arm64 (if the crashing cpu isn't VMBUS_CONNECT_CPU), it
> always ends up at "VMBus UNLOAD did not complete" without fail. It seems
> like arm64's crash_smp_send_stop() is more aggressive than x86's.

FWIW, I tested on a D16plds_v6 arm64 VM in Azure, running Ubuntu 20.04 with
a linux-next20252021 kernel. I caused a panic using "echo c >/proc/sysrq-trigger"
using "taskset" to make sure the panic is triggered on a CPU other than CPU 0.
I didn't see any problem. The panic code path completely quickly, and there were
no messages from vmbus_wait_for_unload(), including none of the periodic
"Waiting for unload" messages . I tried initiating the panic on several different
CPUs (4, 7, and 15) with the same result. I tested with kdump disabled and with
kdump enabled, both with no problems.

So I think the current vmbus_wait_for_unload() code works on arm64, as least
in some ordinary scenarios. Any key differences in the configuration or test
environment when you see the "did not complete" message?

Michael





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux