[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YqyxjDz4fB3LuRgJ@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 18:53:32 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Juri Lelli <jlelli@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] panic, kexec: Don't mutex_trylock() in __crash_kexec()
On 2022-06-17 17:09:24 [+0100], Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Those were pretty much my thoughts. I *think* panic() can be re-entrant on
> the same CPU if the first entry was from NMI, but that still requires being
> able to schedule a thread that panics which isn't a given after getting
> that panic NMI. So for now actually doing the kexec in NMI (or IRQ) context
> seems to be the less hazardous route.
most likely. Just get rid of the mutex and we should be good to go ;)
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists