[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5C4C569E8A4B9B42A84A977CF070A35B2C199C64E5@USINDEVS01.corp.hds.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:14:22 -0400
From: Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
CC: "kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Americo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jarod Wilson <jwilson@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"dzickus@...hat.com" <dzickus@...hat.com>,
"dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>
Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH -mmotm 1/4] Add static function calls of pstore to
kexec path
>And how does that handle the case where we're halfway through a pstore
>access when the NMI arrives? ERST, at least, has a complex state
>machine. You can't guarantee what starting one transaction without
>completing one that was in process will do.
As for ERST, write access is protected by raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&erst_lock).
Are there anything I'm missing?
Seiji
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew Garrett [mailto:mjg@...hat.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 2:52 PM
>To: Seiji Aguchi
>Cc: kexec@...ts.infradead.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org; Eric W. Biederman; Vivek
>Goyal; KOSAKI Motohiro; Americo Wang; tony.luck@...el.com; Andrew Morton; Jarod Wilson; hpa@...or.com; dzickus@...hat.com;
>dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net; Satoru Moriya
>Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mmotm 1/4] Add static function calls of pstore to kexec path
>
>On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 02:48:22PM -0400, Seiji Aguchi wrote:
>> >How is this safe? What happens if there's a pstore access in process
>> >when you hit this codepath?
>>
>> This will never happen because pstore_kmsg_dump_in_interrupt() is called after machine_crash_shutdown().
>>
>> Panicked cpu sends NMI to all other cpus in machine_crash_shutdown() and they stop.
>
>And how does that handle the case where we're halfway through a pstore
>access when the NMI arrives? ERST, at least, has a complex state
>machine. You can't guarantee what starting one transaction without
>completing one that was in process will do.
>
>--
>Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists