[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <04EAB7311EE43145B2D3536183D1A8445491DB5E@GSjpTKYDCembx31.service.hitachi.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:09:18 +0000
From: 河合英宏 / KAWAI,HIDEHIRO
<hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>
To: "'Michal Hocko'" <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU,MASAMI
<masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Subject: RE: Re: [V2 PATCH 1/3] x86/panic: Fix re-entrance problem due to
panic on NMI
> From: Michal Hocko [mailto:mhocko@...nel.org]
> On Wed 29-07-15 05:48:47, 河合英宏 / KAWAI,HIDEHIRO wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > From: linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Hidehiro Kawai
> > > (2015/07/27 23:34), Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 27-07-15 10:58:50, Hidehiro Kawai wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > The check could be also relaxed a bit and nmi_panic would
> > > > return only if the ongoing panic is the current cpu when we really have
> > > > to return and allow the preempted panic to finish.
> > >
> > > It's reasonable. I'll do that in the next version.
> >
> > I noticed atomic_read() is insufficient. Please consider the following
> > scenario.
> >
> > CPU 1: call panic() in the normal context
> > CPU 0: call nmi_panic(), check the value of panic_cpu, then call panic()
> > CPU 1: set 1 to panic_cpu
> > CPU 0: fail to set 0 to panic_cpu, then do an infinite loop
> > CPU 1: call crash_kexec(), then call kdump_nmi_shootdown_cpus()
> >
> > At this point, since CPU 0 loops in NMI context, it never executes
> > the NMI handler registered by kdump_nmi_shootdown_cpus(). This means
> > that no register states are saved and no cleanups for VMX/SVM are
> > performed.
>
> Yes this is true but it is no different from the current state, isn't
> it? So if you want to handle that then it deserves a separate patch.
> It is certainly not harmful wrt. panic behavior.
>
> > So, we should still use atomic_cmpxchg() in nmi_panic() to
> > prevent other cpus from running panic routines.
>
> Not sure what you mean by that.
I mean that we should use the same logic as my V2 patch like this:
#define nmi_panic(fmt, ...) \
do { \
if (atomic_cmpxchg(&panic_cpu, -1, raw_smp_processor_id()) \
== -1) \
panic(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
} while (0)
By using atomic_cmpxchg here, we can ensure that only this cpu
runs panic routines. It is important to prevent a NMI-context cpu
from calling panic_smp_self_stop().
void panic(const char *fmt, ...)
{
...
* `old_cpu == -1' means we are the first comer.
* `old_cpu == this_cpu' means we came here due to panic on NMI.
*/
this_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
old_cpu = atomic_cmpxchg(&panic_cpu, -1, this_cpu);
if (old_cpu != -1 && old_cpu != this_cpu)
panic_smp_self_stop();
Please assume that CPU 0 calls nmi_panic() in NMI context
and CPU 1 calls panic() in normal context at tha same time.
If CPU 1 set panic_cpu before CPU 0 does, CPU 1 runs panic routines
and CPU 0 return from the nmi handler. Eventually CPU 0 is stopped
by nmi_shootdown_cpus().
If CPU 0 set panic_cpu before CPU 1 does, CPU 0 runs panic routines.
CPU 1 calls panic_smp_self_stop(), and wait for NMI by
nmi_shootdown_cpus().
Anyway, I tested my approach and it worked fine.
Regards,
Kawai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists