Re: [RFC][PATCH v4 -next 1/4] Move kmsg_dump(KMSG_DUMP_PANIC) below smp_send_stop()

[Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 05:57:40PM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 10:32:31PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > > What if we send the REBOOT_IPI first and let it block for up to a second.
> > > Most code paths that are done with spin_locks will use
> > > spin_lock_irqrestore.  As soon as the interrupts are re-enabled the
> > > REBOOT_IPI comes in and takes the processor.  If after a second the cpu
> > > still is blocking interrupts, just use the NMI as a big hammer to shut it
> > > down.
> > 
> > This looks good - it certainly deals with my "if we just let them run
> > a bit, they'd release the locks" quibble.  One second sounds very
> > generous - but I'm not going to bikeshed that (so long as it is a total
> > of one second - not one second per cpu). So the pseudo-code is:
> 

Hi Tony,

If I put together a patch to address this would you be willing to let
Seiji move the kmsg_dump to below smp_send_stop()?

Cheers,
Don

> This is how the stop_cpus is implemented on x86 and the one second comes
> from there
> 
> arch/x86/kernel/smp.c::native_irq_stop_other_cpus and
> native_nmi_stop_other_cpus
> 
> > 
> > 	send_reboot_ipi_to_everyone_else()
> > 
> > 	wait_1_second()
> > 
> > 	for_each_cpu_that_didnt_respond_to_reboot_ipi {
> > 		hit_that_cpu_with_NMI()
> > 	}
> > 
> > Perhaps a notification printk() if we had to use the NMI hammer?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Again this is for x86, but I guess that is our common case with pstore.
> 
> Cheers,
> Don