[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YCE4tIrz/u/RkDc/@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 22:12:20 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
john.ogness@...utronix.de,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v2] printk: fix deadlock when kernel panic
On (21/02/08 16:49), Muchun Song wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:38 PM Sergey Senozhatsky
> <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On (21/02/06 13:41), Muchun Song wrote:
> > > We found a deadlock bug on our server when the kernel panic. It can be
> > > described in the following diagram.
> > >
> > > CPU0: CPU1:
> > > panic rcu_dump_cpu_stacks
> > > kdump_nmi_shootdown_cpus nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace
> > > register_nmi_handler(crash_nmi_callback) printk_safe_flush
> > > __printk_safe_flush
> > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&read_lock)
> > > // send NMI to other processors
> > > apic_send_IPI_allbutself(NMI_VECTOR)
> > > // NMI interrupt, dead loop
> > > crash_nmi_callback
> >
> > At what point does this decrement num_online_cpus()? Any chance that
> > panic CPU can apic_send_IPI_allbutself() and printk_safe_flush_on_panic()
> > before num_online_cpus() becomes 1?
>
> I took a closer look at the code. IIUC, It seems that there is no point
> which decreases num_online_cpus.
So then this never re-inits the safe_read_lock?
if (num_online_cpus() > 1)
return;
debug_locks_off();
raw_spin_lock_init(&safe_read_lock);
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists