[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1320228239.2776.14.camel@br98xy6r>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:03:59 +0100
From: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kdump: Fix crash_kexec - smp_send_stop race in panic
On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 16:04 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 01:34:19PM +0100, Michael Holzheu wrote:
> > Hello Andrew, hello linux-arch,
> >
> > > Well OK. Maybe some architectures do have this problem - who would
> > > notice? If that is the case, we just made the failure cases much more
> > > common. Could you check, please?
> >
> > @linux-arch:
> >
> > This patch introduces a spinlock to prevent parallel execution of the
> > panic code. Andrew pointed out that this might be a problem for
> > architectures that can't do smp_send_stop() on remote CPUs that have
> > interrupts disabled. When irq-disabled CPUs execute panic() in parallel,
> > we then would have looping CPUs.
>
> x86 has such problem and I posted a patch recently to fix it
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/13/426
Ok good, so with this patch x86 has no problem with the panic spinlock.
Anybody else?
Instead of introducing the panic lock, as an alternative we could move
smp_send_stop() to the beginning of panic(). Eric told me that the
function is currently "insufficiently reliable" for that, but perhaps we
could make it more reliable.
Michael
--
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