Message-ID: <ZFvGqD//pm/lZb+p@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 May 2023 17:30:32 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, ito-yuichi@...itsu.com,
        kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@...iatek.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
        Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Gaosheng Cui <cuigaosheng1@...wei.com>,
        "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
        Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
        Jinyang He <hejinyang@...ngson.cn>,
        Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Masayoshi Mizuma <m.mizuma@...fujitsu.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@...at.org>,
        Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@....com>,
        Qing Zhang <zhangqing@...ngson.cn>,
        "Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/10] arm64: Add framework to turn an IPI as NMI

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 08:28:17AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,

Hi Doug,

> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 3:57 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> > This is an attempt to resurrect Sumit's old patch series [1] that
> > allowed us to use the arm64 pseudo-NMI to get backtraces of CPUs and
> > also to round up CPUs in kdb/kgdb. The last post from Sumit that I
> > could find was v7, so I called this series v8. I haven't copied all of
> > his old changelongs here, but you can find them from the link.
> >
> > Since v7, I have:
> > * Addressed the small amount of feedback that was there for v7.
> > * Rebased.
> > * Added a new patch that prevents us from spamming the logs with idle
> >   tasks.
> > * Added an extra patch to gracefully fall back to regular IPIs if
> >   pseudo-NMIs aren't there.
> >
> > Since there appear to be a few different patches series related to
> > being able to use NMIs to get stack traces of crashed systems, let me
> > try to organize them to the best of my understanding:
> >
> > a) This series. On its own, a) will (among other things) enable stack
> >    traces of all running processes with the soft lockup detector if
> >    you've enabled the sysctl "kernel.softlockup_all_cpu_backtrace". On
> >    its own, a) doesn't give a hard lockup detector.
> >
> > b) A different recently-posted series [2] that adds a hard lockup
> >    detector based on perf. On its own, b) gives a stack crawl of the
> >    locked up CPU but no stack crawls of other CPUs (even if they're
> >    locked too). Together with a) + b) we get everything (full lockup
> >    detect, full ability to get stack crawls).
> >
> > c) The old Android "buddy" hard lockup detector [3] that I'm
> >    considering trying to upstream. If b) lands then I believe c) would
> >    be redundant (at least for arm64). c) on its own is really only
> >    useful on arm64 for platforms that can print CPU_DBGPCSR somehow
> >    (see [4]). a) + c) is roughly as good as a) + b).

> It's been 3 weeks and I haven't heard a peep on this series. That
> means nobody has any objections and it's all good to land, right?
> Right? :-P

FWIW, there are still longstanding soundness issues in the arm64 pseudo-NMI
support (and fixing that requires an overhaul of our DAIF / IRQ flag
management, which I've been chipping away at for a number of releases), so I
hadn't looked at this in detail yet because the foundations are still somewhat
dodgy.

I appreciate that this has been around for a while, and it's on my queue to
look at.

Thanks,
Mark.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists