From: Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@ah.jp.nec.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: k-miyoshi@cb.jp.nec.com, Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de>,
kdb@oss.sgi.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vgoyal@in.ibm.com,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] add new notifier function ,take2
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:52:41 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47171ED9.7010907@ah.jp.nec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071018080621.GB8779@in.ibm.com>
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 12:06:51AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:45:08 +0900 Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@ah.jp.nec.com> wrote:
>> I can sort-of see what this is doing. Runtime-definable management of
>> which notifier functions will be called on a panic? Or maybe I
>> misunderstood.
>>
>> But even if I did understand, I don't understand why Linux needs this
>> feature - what are the use cases, what is the value to our users?
>>
>> Can you please flesh that information out a bit more?
>>
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Takenori wants to make kdb and kdump co-exist. Currently after panic()
> panic_notifier_list is not executed if kdump is configured. Before list
> is executed, system will boot into second kernel to capture the dump. Hence
> if even if kdb was registered on panic_notifier_list, it will never get
> a chance to run.
Yes, it is true. But I don't mind only kdb and kdump co-exist.
Keith Owen said,
> > My stance is that _all_ the RAS tools (kdb, kgdb, nlkd, netdump, lkcd,
> > crash, kdump etc.) should be using a common interface that safely puts
> > the entire system in a stopped state and saves the state of each cpu.
> > Then each tool can do what it likes, instead of every RAS tool doing
> > its own thing and they all conflict with each other, which is why this
> > thread started.
> >
> > It is not the kernel's job to decide which RAS tool runs first, second
> > etc., it is the user's decision to set that policy. Different sites
> > will want different orders, some will say "go straight to kdump", other
> > sites will want to invoke a debugger first. Sites must be able to
> > define that policy, but we hard code the policy into the kernel.
I agreed with him and I made new notifier function that users can change
the order. Priority value in notifier blocks are hardcoded. If users want to
change list order, they have to rebuild kernel. I think it is very unhappy.
This is our discussion.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/797220?do=post_view_threaded#797220
In addition, we can use new notifier function to reboot_notifier, die_chain
if users want to use.
>> The patches are somewhat wordwrapped - please check your email client
>> configuration, thanks.
Sorry, I'll resend.
Thanks,
Takenori
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@ah.jp.nec.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: vgoyal@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
k-miyoshi@cb.jp.nec.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de>, Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>,
kdb@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] add new notifier function ,take2
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:52:41 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47171ED9.7010907@ah.jp.nec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071018080621.GB8779@in.ibm.com>
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 12:06:51AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:45:08 +0900 Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@ah.jp.nec.com> wrote:
>> I can sort-of see what this is doing. Runtime-definable management of
>> which notifier functions will be called on a panic? Or maybe I
>> misunderstood.
>>
>> But even if I did understand, I don't understand why Linux needs this
>> feature - what are the use cases, what is the value to our users?
>>
>> Can you please flesh that information out a bit more?
>>
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Takenori wants to make kdb and kdump co-exist. Currently after panic()
> panic_notifier_list is not executed if kdump is configured. Before list
> is executed, system will boot into second kernel to capture the dump. Hence
> if even if kdb was registered on panic_notifier_list, it will never get
> a chance to run.
Yes, it is true. But I don't mind only kdb and kdump co-exist.
Keith Owen said,
> > My stance is that _all_ the RAS tools (kdb, kgdb, nlkd, netdump, lkcd,
> > crash, kdump etc.) should be using a common interface that safely puts
> > the entire system in a stopped state and saves the state of each cpu.
> > Then each tool can do what it likes, instead of every RAS tool doing
> > its own thing and they all conflict with each other, which is why this
> > thread started.
> >
> > It is not the kernel's job to decide which RAS tool runs first, second
> > etc., it is the user's decision to set that policy. Different sites
> > will want different orders, some will say "go straight to kdump", other
> > sites will want to invoke a debugger first. Sites must be able to
> > define that policy, but we hard code the policy into the kernel.
I agreed with him and I made new notifier function that users can change
the order. Priority value in notifier blocks are hardcoded. If users want to
change list order, they have to rebuild kernel. I think it is very unhappy.
This is our discussion.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/797220?do=post_view_threaded#797220
In addition, we can use new notifier function to reboot_notifier, die_chain
if users want to use.
>> The patches are somewhat wordwrapped - please check your email client
>> configuration, thanks.
Sorry, I'll resend.
Thanks,
Takenori
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-18 8:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-18 6:45 [PATCH 0/2] add new notifier function ,take2 Takenori Nagano
2007-10-18 6:45 ` Takenori Nagano
2007-10-18 7:06 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-18 7:06 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-18 8:06 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-10-18 8:06 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-10-18 8:52 ` Takenori Nagano [this message]
2007-10-18 8:52 ` Takenori Nagano
2007-10-21 12:00 ` Nick Piggin
2007-10-21 12:00 ` Nick Piggin
[not found] ` <471D4668.4090300@ah.jp.nec.com>
2007-10-24 6:48 ` sysfs sys/kernel/ namespace (was Re: [PATCH 0/2] add new notifier function ,take2) Nick Piggin
2007-10-24 11:12 ` Kay Sievers
2007-10-25 2:31 ` Nick Piggin
2007-10-25 5:45 ` Greg KH
2007-10-25 6:12 ` Nick Piggin
2007-10-25 6:48 ` [PATCH 0/2] add new notifier function ,take2 Takenori Nagano
2007-10-25 6:48 ` Takenori Nagano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=47171ED9.7010907@ah.jp.nec.com \
--to=t-nagano@ah.jp.nec.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bwalle@suse.de \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=k-miyoshi@cb.jp.nec.com \
--cc=kaos@ocs.com.au \
--cc=kdb@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vgoyal@in.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.