On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 17:28:07 +0200
Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > When I get a chance, I'll see if I can insert a trigger to crash the
> > kernel from NMI on another box and see if this patch helps.
>
> I actually tested it here using this hack:
>
> diff --cc lib/nmi_backtrace.c
> index d531f85c0c9b,0bc0a3535a8a..000000000000
> --- a/lib/nmi_backtrace.c
> +++ b/lib/nmi_backtrace.c
> @@@ -89,8 -90,7 +90,9 @@@ bool nmi_cpu_backtrace(struct pt_regs *
> int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>
> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, to_cpumask(backtrace_mask))) {
> + if (in_nmi())
> + panic("Simulating panic in NMI\n");
> + arch_spin_lock(&lock);
I was going to create a ftrace trigger, to crash on demand, but this
may do as well.
> if (regs && cpu_in_idle(instruction_pointer(regs))) {
> pr_warn("NMI backtrace for cpu %d skipped: idling at pc %#lx\n",
> cpu, instruction_pointer(regs));
>
> and triggered by:
>
> echo l > /proc/sysrq-trigger
>
> The patch really helped to see much more (all) messages from the ftrace
> buffers in NMI mode.
>
> But the test is a bit artifical. The patch might not help when there
> is a big printk() activity on the system when the panic() is
> triggered. We might wrongly use the small per-CPU buffer when
> the logbuf_lock is tested and taken on another CPU at the same time.
> It means that it will not always help.
>
> I personally think that the patch might be good enough. I am not sure
> if a perfect (more comlpex) solution is worth it.
I wasn't asking for perfect, as the previous solutions never were
either. I just want an optimistic dump if possible.
I'll try to get some time today to test this, and let you know. But it
wont be on the machine that I originally had the issue with.
Thanks,
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
