[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1ipneifqv.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:14:16 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kdump: crash_kexec()-smp_send_stop() race in panic
Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> Hello Vivek,
>
> In our tests we ran into the following scenario:
>
> Two CPUs have called panic at the same time. The first CPU called
> crash_kexec() and the second CPU called smp_send_stop() in panic()
> before crash_kexec() finished on the first CPU. So the second CPU
> stopped the first CPU and therefore kdump failed.
>
> 1st CPU:
> panic()->crash_kexec()->mutex_trylock(&kexec_mutex)-> do kdump
>
> 2nd CPU:
> panic()->crash_kexec()->kexec_mutex already held by 1st CPU
> ->smp_send_stop()-> stop CPU 1 (stop kdump)
>
> How should we fix this problem? One possibility could be to do
> smp_send_stop() before we call crash_kexec().
>
> What do you think?
smp_send_stop is insufficiently reliable to be used before crash_kexec.
My first reaction would be to test oops_in_progress and wait until
oops_in_progress == 1 before calling smp_send_stop.
Eric
--
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