Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2023 16:06:34 -0700
From:   Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@...iatek.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <kernel@...ccoli.net>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Triggering a softlockup panic during SMP boot

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 03:04:56PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 02:46:26PM -0700, Krister Johansen wrote:
> > Hi,
> > This pair of patches was the result of an unsuccessful attempt to set
> > softlockup_panic before SMP boot.  The rationale for wanting to set this
> > parameter is that some of the VMs that my team runs will occasionally
> > get stuck while onlining the non-boot processors as part of SMP boot.
> > 
> > In the cases where this happens, we find out about it after the instance
> > successfully boots; however, the machines can get stuck for tens of
> > minutes at a time before finally completing onlining processors.  Since
> > we pay per minute for many of these VMs there were two goals for setting
> > this value on boot: first, fail fast and hope that a subsequent boot
> > attempt will be successful.  Second, a panic is a little easier to keep
> > track of, especially if we're scraping serial logs after the fact.  In
> > essence, the goal is to trigger the failure earlier and hopefully get
> > more useful information for further debugging the problem as well.
> > 
> > While testing to make sure that this value was getting correctly set on
> > boot, I ran into a pair of surprises.  First, when the softlockup_panic
> > parameter was migrated to a sysctl alias, it had the side effect of
> > setting the parameter value after SMP boot has occurred, when it used to
> > be set before this.  Second, testing revealed that even though the
> > aliases were being correctly processed, the kernel was reporting the
> > commandline arguments as unrecognized. This generated a message in the
> > logs about an unrecognized parameter (even though it was) and the
> > parameter was passed as an environment variable to init.
> > 
> > The first patch ensures that aliased sysctl arguments are not reported
> > as unrecognized boot arguments.
> > 
> > The second patch moves the setting of softlockup_panic earlier in boot,
> > where it can take effect before SMP boot beings.
> 
> Sounds all great but I only got the cover letter, so may be resend?

Apologies, I'm not sure quite what went wrong there.  I've resent the
patches to the people in the To: of the original messages, in an attempt
to avoid sending copies to everybody a second time.

The entire set seems to have made it to lore:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/ZTw0CACF3jtT3%2FdX@bombadil.infradead.org/T/#r831972d73aad653c3b732e4e36e743cd53673847

If you still haven't got the copies, please let me know and I'll see
if there's something else I can do to get them to you.

Sorry about this. :/

-K

Powered by blists - more mailing lists