[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yrg25MZNqt+h1FCB@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2022 18:37:24 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
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>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Juri Lelli <jlelli@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] panic, kexec: Make __crash_kexec() NMI safe
On 06/24/22 at 02:37pm, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 24/06/22 09:30, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 06/20/22 at 12:15pm, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> @@ -94,14 +94,20 @@ static int do_kexec_load(unsigned long entry, unsigned long nr_segments,
> >> /*
> >> * Because we write directly to the reserved memory region when loading
> >> * crash kernels we need a mutex here to prevent multiple crash kernels
> >> - * from attempting to load simultaneously, and to prevent a crash kernel
> >> - * from loading over the top of a in use crash kernel.
> >> - *
> >> - * KISS: always take the mutex.
> >> + * from attempting to load simultaneously.
> >> */
> >> if (!mutex_trylock(&kexec_mutex))
> >> return -EBUSY;
> >
> > So kexec_mutex is degenerated to only avoid simultaneous loading,
> > should we rename to reflect that?, e.g kexec_load_mutex.
> >
>
> It's also serializing crash_get_memory_size() and crash_shrink_memory();
> more generally it should still be the preferred serialization mechanism as
> it's a "proper" lock visible by instrumentation, the atomic variable is a
> side character for the NMI case.
You are right. I only checked the code comment in this place. Then this
patch looks good to me, thx.
Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists