[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ed66q6d5.fsf@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 10:15:50 -0700
From: Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com>
To: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Cc: bhe@...hat.com, vgoyal@...hat.com, dyoung@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-debuggers@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...ccoli.net, kernel-dev@...lia.com,
"Guilherme G. Piccoli"
<gpiccoli@...lia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Improve crash_kexec_post_notifiers
description
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com> writes:
> Be more clear about the downsides, the upsides (yes, there are some!)
> and about code that unconditionally sets that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
> ---
> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 16 ++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> index efc52ddc6864..cb25dc5cbe9a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -913,12 +913,16 @@
> the parameter has no effect.
>
> crash_kexec_post_notifiers
> - Run kdump after running panic-notifiers and dumping
> - kmsg. This only for the users who doubt kdump always
> - succeeds in any situation.
> - Note that this also increases risks of kdump failure,
> - because some panic notifiers can make the crashed
> - kernel more unstable.
> + Only jump to kdump kernel after running the panic
> + notifiers and dumping kmsg. This option increases the
> + risks of a kdump failure, since some panic notifiers
> + can make the crashed kernel more unstable. As a bright
> + side, it might allow to collect more data on dmesg like
> + stack traces from other CPUs or extra data dumped by
> + panic_print. This is usually only for users who doubt
> + kdump will succeed every time.
This is definitely clearer and an improvement! But I didn't (and still
don't) love the phrase "users who doubt kdump will succeed" because I
think that implies user error or silly beliefs.
What if these two sentences read something like:
In configurations where kdump may not be reliable, running the panic
notifiers can allow collecting more data on dmesg, like stack traces
from other CPUS or extra data dumped by panic_print.
> Notice that some code
> + enables this option unconditionally, like Hyper-V,
> + PowerPC (fadump) and AMD SEV.
Yes, great addition.
With or without my suggestions it's an improvement, so:
Reviewed-by: Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists