arm64: smp: smp_send_stop() and crash_smp_send_stop() should try non-NMI first

  When testing hard lockup handling on my sc7180-trogdor-lazor device
with pseudo-NMI enabled, with serial console enabled and with kgdb
disabled, I found that the stack crawls printed to the serial console
ended up as a jumbled mess. After rebooting, the pstore-based console
looked fine though. Also, enabling kgdb to trap the panic made the
console look fine and avoided the mess.

After a bit of tracking down, I came to the conclusion that this was
what was happening:
1. The panic path was stopping all other CPUs with
   panic_other_cpus_shutdown().
2. At least one of those other CPUs was in the middle of printing to
   the serial console and holding the console port's lock, which is
   grabbed with "irqsave". ...but since we were stopping with an NMI
   we didn't care about the "irqsave" and interrupted anyway.
3. Since we stopped the CPU while it was holding the lock it would
   never release it.
4. All future calls to output to the console would end up failing to
   get the lock in qcom_geni_serial_console_write(). This isn't
   _totally_ unexpected at panic time but it's a code path that's not
   well tested, hard to get right, and apparently doesn't work
   terribly well on the Qualcomm geni serial driver.

It would probably be a reasonable idea to try to make the Qualcomm
geni serial driver work better, but also it's nice not to get into
this situation in the first place.

Taking a page from what x86 appears to do in native_stop_other_cpus(),
let's do this:
1. First, we'll try to stop other CPUs with a normal IPI and wait a
   second. This gives them a chance to leave critical sections.
2. If CPUs fail to stop then we'll retry with an NMI, but give a much
   lower timeout since there's no good reason for a CPU not to react
   quickly to a NMI.

This works well and avoids the corrupted console and (presumably)
could help avoid other similar issues.

In order to do this, we need to do a little re-organization of our
IPIs since we don't have any more free IDs. We'll do what was
suggested in previous conversations and combine "stop" and "crash
stop". That frees up an IPI so now we can have a "stop" and "stop
NMI".

In order to do this we also need a slight change in the way we keep
track of which CPUs still need to be stopped. We need to know
specifically which CPUs haven't stopped yet when we fall back to NMI
but in the "crash stop" case the "cpu_online_mask" isn't updated as
CPUs go down. This is why that code path had an atomic of the number
of CPUs left. We'll solve this by making the cpumask into a
global. This has a potential memory implication--with NR_CPUs = 4096
this is 4096/8 = 512 bytes of globals. On the upside in that same case
we take 512 bytes off the stack which could potentially have made the
stop code less reliable. It can be noted that the NMI backtrace code
(lib/nmi_backtrace.c) uses the same approach and that use also
confirms that updating the mask is safe from NMI.

All of the above lets us combine the logic for "stop" and "crash stop"
code, which appeared to have a bunch of arbitrary implementation
differences. Possibly this could make up for some of the 512 wasted
bytes. ;-)

Aside from the above change where we try a normal IPI and then an NMI,
the combined function has a few subtle differences:
* In the normal smp_send_stop(), if we fail to stop one or more CPUs
  then we won't include the current CPU (the one running
  smp_send_stop()) in the error message.
* In crash_smp_send_stop(), if we fail to stop some CPUs we'll print
  the CPUs that we failed to stop instead of printing all _but_ the
  current running CPU.
* In crash_smp_send_stop(), we will now only print "SMP: stopping
  secondary CPUs" if (system_state <= SYSTEM_RUNNING).

Fixes: d7402513c935 ("arm64: smp: IPI_CPU_STOP and IPI_CPU_CRASH_STOP should try for NMI")
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
---
I'm not setup to test the crash_smp_send_stop(). I made sure it
compiled and hacked the panic() method to call it, but I haven't
actually run kexec. Hopefully others can confirm that it's working for
them.

 arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 115 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------
 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
  

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 5:03 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> When testing hard lockup handling on my sc7180-trogdor-lazor device
> with pseudo-NMI enabled, with serial console enabled and with kgdb
> disabled, I found that the stack crawls printed to the serial console
> ended up as a jumbled mess. After rebooting, the pstore-based console
> looked fine though. Also, enabling kgdb to trap the panic made the
> console look fine and avoided the mess.
>
> After a bit of tracking down, I came to the conclusion that this was
> what was happening:
> 1. The panic path was stopping all other CPUs with
>    panic_other_cpus_shutdown().
> 2. At least one of those other CPUs was in the middle of printing to
>    the serial console and holding the console port's lock, which is
>    grabbed with "irqsave". ...but since we were stopping with an NMI
>    we didn't care about the "irqsave" and interrupted anyway.
> 3. Since we stopped the CPU while it was holding the lock it would
>    never release it.
> 4. All future calls to output to the console would end up failing to
>    get the lock in qcom_geni_serial_console_write(). This isn't
>    _totally_ unexpected at panic time but it's a code path that's not
>    well tested, hard to get right, and apparently doesn't work
>    terribly well on the Qualcomm geni serial driver.
>
> It would probably be a reasonable idea to try to make the Qualcomm
> geni serial driver work better, but also it's nice not to get into
> this situation in the first place.
>
> Taking a page from what x86 appears to do in native_stop_other_cpus(),
> let's do this:
> 1. First, we'll try to stop other CPUs with a normal IPI and wait a
>    second. This gives them a chance to leave critical sections.
> 2. If CPUs fail to stop then we'll retry with an NMI, but give a much
>    lower timeout since there's no good reason for a CPU not to react
>    quickly to a NMI.
>
> This works well and avoids the corrupted console and (presumably)
> could help avoid other similar issues.
>
> In order to do this, we need to do a little re-organization of our
> IPIs since we don't have any more free IDs. We'll do what was
> suggested in previous conversations and combine "stop" and "crash
> stop". That frees up an IPI so now we can have a "stop" and "stop
> NMI".
>
> In order to do this we also need a slight change in the way we keep
> track of which CPUs still need to be stopped. We need to know
> specifically which CPUs haven't stopped yet when we fall back to NMI
> but in the "crash stop" case the "cpu_online_mask" isn't updated as
> CPUs go down. This is why that code path had an atomic of the number
> of CPUs left. We'll solve this by making the cpumask into a
> global. This has a potential memory implication--with NR_CPUs = 4096
> this is 4096/8 = 512 bytes of globals. On the upside in that same case
> we take 512 bytes off the stack which could potentially have made the
> stop code less reliable. It can be noted that the NMI backtrace code
> (lib/nmi_backtrace.c) uses the same approach and that use also
> confirms that updating the mask is safe from NMI.
>
> All of the above lets us combine the logic for "stop" and "crash stop"
> code, which appeared to have a bunch of arbitrary implementation
> differences. Possibly this could make up for some of the 512 wasted
> bytes. ;-)
>
> Aside from the above change where we try a normal IPI and then an NMI,
> the combined function has a few subtle differences:
> * In the normal smp_send_stop(), if we fail to stop one or more CPUs
>   then we won't include the current CPU (the one running
>   smp_send_stop()) in the error message.
> * In crash_smp_send_stop(), if we fail to stop some CPUs we'll print
>   the CPUs that we failed to stop instead of printing all _but_ the
>   current running CPU.
> * In crash_smp_send_stop(), we will now only print "SMP: stopping
>   secondary CPUs" if (system_state <= SYSTEM_RUNNING).
>
> Fixes: d7402513c935 ("arm64: smp: IPI_CPU_STOP and IPI_CPU_CRASH_STOP should try for NMI")
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
> I'm not setup to test the crash_smp_send_stop(). I made sure it
> compiled and hacked the panic() method to call it, but I haven't
> actually run kexec. Hopefully others can confirm that it's working for
> them.
>
>  arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 115 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)

The sound of crickets is overwhelming. ;-) Does anyone have any
comments here? Is this a terrible idea? Is this the best idea you've
heard all year (it's only been 8 days, so maybe)? Is this great but
the implementation is lacking (at best)? Do you hate that this waits
for 1 second and wish it waited for 1 ms? 10 ms? 100 ms? 8192 ms?

Aside from the weirdness of a processor being killed while holding the
console lock, it does seem beneficial to give IRQs at least a little
time to finish before killing a processor. I don't have any other
explicit examples, but I could just imagine that things might be a
little more orderly in such a case...

-Doug
  

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 4:54 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 5:03 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > When testing hard lockup handling on my sc7180-trogdor-lazor device
> > with pseudo-NMI enabled, with serial console enabled and with kgdb
> > disabled, I found that the stack crawls printed to the serial console
> > ended up as a jumbled mess. After rebooting, the pstore-based console
> > looked fine though. Also, enabling kgdb to trap the panic made the
> > console look fine and avoided the mess.
> >
> > After a bit of tracking down, I came to the conclusion that this was
> > what was happening:
> > 1. The panic path was stopping all other CPUs with
> >    panic_other_cpus_shutdown().
> > 2. At least one of those other CPUs was in the middle of printing to
> >    the serial console and holding the console port's lock, which is
> >    grabbed with "irqsave". ...but since we were stopping with an NMI
> >    we didn't care about the "irqsave" and interrupted anyway.
> > 3. Since we stopped the CPU while it was holding the lock it would
> >    never release it.
> > 4. All future calls to output to the console would end up failing to
> >    get the lock in qcom_geni_serial_console_write(). This isn't
> >    _totally_ unexpected at panic time but it's a code path that's not
> >    well tested, hard to get right, and apparently doesn't work
> >    terribly well on the Qualcomm geni serial driver.
> >
> > It would probably be a reasonable idea to try to make the Qualcomm
> > geni serial driver work better, but also it's nice not to get into
> > this situation in the first place.
> >
> > Taking a page from what x86 appears to do in native_stop_other_cpus(),
> > let's do this:
> > 1. First, we'll try to stop other CPUs with a normal IPI and wait a
> >    second. This gives them a chance to leave critical sections.
> > 2. If CPUs fail to stop then we'll retry with an NMI, but give a much
> >    lower timeout since there's no good reason for a CPU not to react
> >    quickly to a NMI.
> >
> > This works well and avoids the corrupted console and (presumably)
> > could help avoid other similar issues.
> >
> > In order to do this, we need to do a little re-organization of our
> > IPIs since we don't have any more free IDs. We'll do what was
> > suggested in previous conversations and combine "stop" and "crash
> > stop". That frees up an IPI so now we can have a "stop" and "stop
> > NMI".
> >
> > In order to do this we also need a slight change in the way we keep
> > track of which CPUs still need to be stopped. We need to know
> > specifically which CPUs haven't stopped yet when we fall back to NMI
> > but in the "crash stop" case the "cpu_online_mask" isn't updated as
> > CPUs go down. This is why that code path had an atomic of the number
> > of CPUs left. We'll solve this by making the cpumask into a
> > global. This has a potential memory implication--with NR_CPUs = 4096
> > this is 4096/8 = 512 bytes of globals. On the upside in that same case
> > we take 512 bytes off the stack which could potentially have made the
> > stop code less reliable. It can be noted that the NMI backtrace code
> > (lib/nmi_backtrace.c) uses the same approach and that use also
> > confirms that updating the mask is safe from NMI.
> >
> > All of the above lets us combine the logic for "stop" and "crash stop"
> > code, which appeared to have a bunch of arbitrary implementation
> > differences. Possibly this could make up for some of the 512 wasted
> > bytes. ;-)
> >
> > Aside from the above change where we try a normal IPI and then an NMI,
> > the combined function has a few subtle differences:
> > * In the normal smp_send_stop(), if we fail to stop one or more CPUs
> >   then we won't include the current CPU (the one running
> >   smp_send_stop()) in the error message.
> > * In crash_smp_send_stop(), if we fail to stop some CPUs we'll print
> >   the CPUs that we failed to stop instead of printing all _but_ the
> >   current running CPU.
> > * In crash_smp_send_stop(), we will now only print "SMP: stopping
> >   secondary CPUs" if (system_state <= SYSTEM_RUNNING).
> >
> > Fixes: d7402513c935 ("arm64: smp: IPI_CPU_STOP and IPI_CPU_CRASH_STOP should try for NMI")
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> > ---
> > I'm not setup to test the crash_smp_send_stop(). I made sure it
> > compiled and hacked the panic() method to call it, but I haven't
> > actually run kexec. Hopefully others can confirm that it's working for
> > them.
> >
> >  arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 115 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> >  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
>
> The sound of crickets is overwhelming. ;-) Does anyone have any
> comments here? Is this a terrible idea? Is this the best idea you've
> heard all year (it's only been 8 days, so maybe)? Is this great but
> the implementation is lacking (at best)? Do you hate that this waits
> for 1 second and wish it waited for 1 ms? 10 ms? 100 ms? 8192 ms?
>
> Aside from the weirdness of a processor being killed while holding the
> console lock, it does seem beneficial to give IRQs at least a little
> time to finish before killing a processor. I don't have any other
> explicit examples, but I could just imagine that things might be a
> little more orderly in such a case...

I'm still hoping to get some sort of feedback here. If people think
this is a terrible idea then I'll shut up now and leave well enough
alone, but it would be nice to actively decide and get the patch out
of limbo.

FWIW the serial console dumping issue that originally inspired me to
track this down has been worked around at least well enough to not
spew garbage in my console. See commit 9e957a155005 ("serial:
qcom-geni: Don't cancel/abort if we can't get the port lock"). It's
still a little awkward because we'll be running fully lockless during
panic time, but it seems to work...

-Doug
  

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:57:31PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 4:54 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 5:03 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > When testing hard lockup handling on my sc7180-trogdor-lazor device
> > > with pseudo-NMI enabled, with serial console enabled and with kgdb
> > > disabled, I found that the stack crawls printed to the serial console
> > > ended up as a jumbled mess. After rebooting, the pstore-based console
> > > looked fine though. Also, enabling kgdb to trap the panic made the
> > > console look fine and avoided the mess.
> > >
> > > After a bit of tracking down, I came to the conclusion that this was
> > > what was happening:
> > > 1. The panic path was stopping all other CPUs with
> > >    panic_other_cpus_shutdown().
> > > 2. At least one of those other CPUs was in the middle of printing to
> > >    the serial console and holding the console port's lock, which is
> > >    grabbed with "irqsave". ...but since we were stopping with an NMI
> > >    we didn't care about the "irqsave" and interrupted anyway.
> > > 3. Since we stopped the CPU while it was holding the lock it would
> > >    never release it.
> > > 4. All future calls to output to the console would end up failing to
> > >    get the lock in qcom_geni_serial_console_write(). This isn't
> > >    _totally_ unexpected at panic time but it's a code path that's not
> > >    well tested, hard to get right, and apparently doesn't work
> > >    terribly well on the Qualcomm geni serial driver.
> > >
> > > It would probably be a reasonable idea to try to make the Qualcomm
> > > geni serial driver work better, but also it's nice not to get into
> > > this situation in the first place.
> > >
> > > Taking a page from what x86 appears to do in native_stop_other_cpus(),
> > > let's do this:
> > > 1. First, we'll try to stop other CPUs with a normal IPI and wait a
> > >    second. This gives them a chance to leave critical sections.
> > > 2. If CPUs fail to stop then we'll retry with an NMI, but give a much
> > >    lower timeout since there's no good reason for a CPU not to react
> > >    quickly to a NMI.
> > >
> > > This works well and avoids the corrupted console and (presumably)
> > > could help avoid other similar issues.
> > >
> > > In order to do this, we need to do a little re-organization of our
> > > IPIs since we don't have any more free IDs. We'll do what was
> > > suggested in previous conversations and combine "stop" and "crash
> > > stop". That frees up an IPI so now we can have a "stop" and "stop
> > > NMI".
> > >
> > > In order to do this we also need a slight change in the way we keep
> > > track of which CPUs still need to be stopped. We need to know
> > > specifically which CPUs haven't stopped yet when we fall back to NMI
> > > but in the "crash stop" case the "cpu_online_mask" isn't updated as
> > > CPUs go down. This is why that code path had an atomic of the number
> > > of CPUs left. We'll solve this by making the cpumask into a
> > > global. This has a potential memory implication--with NR_CPUs = 4096
> > > this is 4096/8 = 512 bytes of globals. On the upside in that same case
> > > we take 512 bytes off the stack which could potentially have made the
> > > stop code less reliable. It can be noted that the NMI backtrace code
> > > (lib/nmi_backtrace.c) uses the same approach and that use also
> > > confirms that updating the mask is safe from NMI.
> > >
> > > All of the above lets us combine the logic for "stop" and "crash stop"
> > > code, which appeared to have a bunch of arbitrary implementation
> > > differences. Possibly this could make up for some of the 512 wasted
> > > bytes. ;-)
> > >
> > > Aside from the above change where we try a normal IPI and then an NMI,
> > > the combined function has a few subtle differences:
> > > * In the normal smp_send_stop(), if we fail to stop one or more CPUs
> > >   then we won't include the current CPU (the one running
> > >   smp_send_stop()) in the error message.
> > > * In crash_smp_send_stop(), if we fail to stop some CPUs we'll print
> > >   the CPUs that we failed to stop instead of printing all _but_ the
> > >   current running CPU.
> > > * In crash_smp_send_stop(), we will now only print "SMP: stopping
> > >   secondary CPUs" if (system_state <= SYSTEM_RUNNING).
> > >
> > > Fixes: d7402513c935 ("arm64: smp: IPI_CPU_STOP and IPI_CPU_CRASH_STOP should try for NMI")
> > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > > I'm not setup to test the crash_smp_send_stop(). I made sure it
> > > compiled and hacked the panic() method to call it, but I haven't
> > > actually run kexec. Hopefully others can confirm that it's working for
> > > them.
> > >
> > >  arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 115 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
> >
> > The sound of crickets is overwhelming. ;-) Does anyone have any
> > comments here? Is this a terrible idea? Is this the best idea you've
> > heard all year (it's only been 8 days, so maybe)? Is this great but
> > the implementation is lacking (at best)? Do you hate that this waits
> > for 1 second and wish it waited for 1 ms? 10 ms? 100 ms? 8192 ms?
> >
> > Aside from the weirdness of a processor being killed while holding the
> > console lock, it does seem beneficial to give IRQs at least a little
> > time to finish before killing a processor. I don't have any other
> > explicit examples, but I could just imagine that things might be a
> > little more orderly in such a case...
>
> I'm still hoping to get some sort of feedback here. If people think
> this is a terrible idea then I'll shut up now and leave well enough
> alone, but it would be nice to actively decide and get the patch out
> of limbo.

I've read patch through a couple of times and was generally convinced by
the "do what x86 does" argument.

However until now I've always held my council since I wasn't familiar
with these code paths and I figured it was OK for me to have no opinion
because the first line of the description says that kgdb/kdb is 100% not
involved in causing the problem ;-) .

However today I also took a look at the HAVE_NMI architectures and there
is no consensus between them about how to implement this: PowerPC uses
NMI and most of the others use IRQ only, s390 special cases for the
panic code path and acts differently compared to a normal SMP shutdown.

FWIW the x86 route was irq-only and then switching to irq-plus-nmi
(after a short trial with NMI-only that had problems with pstore
reliability[1]) and that approach has been in place for over
a decade now!

However, if we talking ourselves into copying x86 then perhaps we should
more accurately copy x86! Assuming I read the x86 code correctly then
crash_smp_send_stop() will (mostly) go staight to NMI rather
than trialling an IRQ first! That is not what is currently implemented
in the patch for arm64.


Daniel.


[1]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=7d007d21e539dbecb6942c5734e6649f720982cf
  

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 5:11 AM Daniel Thompson
<daniel.thompson@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > I'm still hoping to get some sort of feedback here. If people think
> > this is a terrible idea then I'll shut up now and leave well enough
> > alone, but it would be nice to actively decide and get the patch out
> > of limbo.
>
> I've read patch through a couple of times and was generally convinced by
> the "do what x86 does" argument.
>
> However until now I've always held my council since I wasn't familiar
> with these code paths and I figured it was OK for me to have no opinion
> because the first line of the description says that kgdb/kdb is 100% not
> involved in causing the problem ;-) .
>
> However today I also took a look at the HAVE_NMI architectures and there
> is no consensus between them about how to implement this: PowerPC uses
> NMI and most of the others use IRQ only, s390 special cases for the
> panic code path and acts differently compared to a normal SMP shutdown.

Thanks for taking a look! I think I just included you since long ago
you were involved in the pseudo-NMI patches. ;-)


> FWIW the x86 route was irq-only and then switching to irq-plus-nmi
> (after a short trial with NMI-only that had problems with pstore
> reliability[1]) and that approach has been in place for over
> a decade now!

Ah, interesting. I guess this isn't a problem for me at the moment
since we're not using any alternate pstore backends (ChromeOS just
does pstore to RAM), but it's good to confirm that people were facing
real issues. This matches what my gut told me: that it's nice to give
CPUs a little chance to shut down more cleanly before jamming an NMI
down their throats.


> However, if we talking ourselves into copying x86 then perhaps we should
> more accurately copy x86! Assuming I read the x86 code correctly then
> crash_smp_send_stop() will (mostly) go staight to NMI rather
> than trialling an IRQ first! That is not what is currently implemented
> in the patch for arm64.

Sure, I'm happy to change the patch to work that way, though I might
wait to get some confirmation from a maintainer that they think this
idea is worth pursuing before spending more time on it. I don't think
it would be hard to have the "crash stop" code jump straight to NMI if
that's what people want. Matching x86 here seems reasonable, though
I'd also say that my gut still says that even for crash stop we should
try to stop things cleanly before jumping to NMI. I guess I could
imagine that the code we're kexec-ing to generate the core file might
be more likely to find the hardware in a funny state if we stopped
CPUs w/ NMI vs IRQ.


-Doug
  

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:34:26AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 5:11 AM Daniel Thompson
> <daniel.thompson@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm still hoping to get some sort of feedback here. If people think
> > > this is a terrible idea then I'll shut up now and leave well enough
> > > alone, but it would be nice to actively decide and get the patch out
> > > of limbo.
> >
> > I've read patch through a couple of times and was generally convinced by
> > the "do what x86 does" argument.
> >
> > However until now I've always held my council since I wasn't familiar
> > with these code paths and I figured it was OK for me to have no opinion
> > because the first line of the description says that kgdb/kdb is 100% not
> > involved in causing the problem ;-) .
> >
> > However today I also took a look at the HAVE_NMI architectures and there
> > is no consensus between them about how to implement this: PowerPC uses
> > NMI and most of the others use IRQ only, s390 special cases for the
> > panic code path and acts differently compared to a normal SMP shutdown.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > However, if we talking ourselves into copying x86 then perhaps we should
> > more accurately copy x86! Assuming I read the x86 code correctly then
> > crash_smp_send_stop() will (mostly) go staight to NMI rather
> > than trialling an IRQ first! That is not what is currently implemented
> > in the patch for arm64.
>
> Sure, I'm happy to change the patch to work that way, though I might
> wait to get some confirmation from a maintainer that they think this
> idea is worth pursuing before spending more time on it.

100%. Don't respin on my account.

> I don't think it would be hard to have the "crash stop" code jump
> straight to NMI if that's what people want. Matching x86 here seems
> reasonable, though I'd also say that my gut still says that even for
> crash stop we should try to stop things cleanly before jumping to NMI.
> I guess I could imagine that the code we're kexec-ing to generate the
> core file might be more likely to find the hardware in a funny state
> if we stopped CPUs w/ NMI vs IRQ.

In terms of the "right thing to do" for kdump then reviewing the s390
might be a good idea. Unfortunately it's a bit different to the other
arches and I can't offer a 95% answer about what that arch does.


Daniel.
  

Hi Doug,

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:57:31PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 4:54 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 5:03 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:

> > The sound of crickets is overwhelming. ;-) Does anyone have any
> > comments here? Is this a terrible idea? Is this the best idea you've
> > heard all year (it's only been 8 days, so maybe)? Is this great but
> > the implementation is lacking (at best)? Do you hate that this waits
> > for 1 second and wish it waited for 1 ms? 10 ms? 100 ms? 8192 ms?
> >
> > Aside from the weirdness of a processor being killed while holding the
> > console lock, it does seem beneficial to give IRQs at least a little
> > time to finish before killing a processor. I don't have any other
> > explicit examples, but I could just imagine that things might be a
> > little more orderly in such a case...
> 
> I'm still hoping to get some sort of feedback here. If people think
> this is a terrible idea then I'll shut up now and leave well enough
> alone, but it would be nice to actively decide and get the patch out
> of limbo.
> 
> FWIW the serial console dumping issue that originally inspired me to
> track this down has been worked around at least well enough to not
> spew garbage in my console. See commit 9e957a155005 ("serial:
> qcom-geni: Don't cancel/abort if we can't get the port lock"). It's
> still a little awkward because we'll be running fully lockless during
> panic time, but it seems to work...

This is on my list of things to look into, but I haven't had the chance to go
through it in detail.

From a high level, I think this sounds reasonable; I just want to make sure
this doesn't lead to any new surprises...

Mark.