[PATCH V3] panic: Move panic_print before kmsg dumpers

[Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>]

On 01/21/22 at 10:17am, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> Hi Baoquan , thanks again for your prompt reply!
> Comments inline below:
> 
> 
> On 20/01/2022 23:31, Baoquan He wrote:
> > [...]
> >> OK, I'll try to be really clear, hopefully I can explain the use case in
> >> better and simpler words. First of all, I wouldn't call it a corner case
> >> - it's just a valid use case that, in my opinion, should be allowed. Why
> >> not, right? Kernel shouldn't push policy on users, we should instead let
> >> the users decide how to use the tools/options.
> > 
> > Agree, sorry about my wrong expression.
> 
> No need to be sorry at all! And if you indeed consider that a corner
> case, feel free to express that and we should take it into account =)
> Your opinion is much appreciated!

From my old POV, I took pstore as a necessity on handheld devices or
embeded system, e.g on Andriod. In that case, reserving crashkernel
memory to enable kdump to save kernel log, it sounds not so
cost-effective, since memory on those systems is usually not big.
I am also interested in any new use case where people deploy these
and why it's needed, to widen my view.
> 
> > 
> > OK, pstore via kmsg_dump is first option, then fallback to kdump.
> > This is what I suggested at below. This is what panic notifier has done
> > at below. I think both of them are similar, thus should take the same
> > way to handle.
> > 
> >  void panic()
> >  {
> >1         if (!_crash_kexec_post_notifiers && !panic_print) {
> >2                 __crash_kexec(NULL);
> >3                 smp_send_stop();
> >4         } else {
> >5                 crash_smp_send_stop();
> >6         }
> >  
> >8  	atomic_notifier_call_chain(&panic_notifier_list, 0, buf);
> >9  	panic_print_sys_info(false);
> >10  	kmsg_dump(KMSG_DUMP_PANIC);
> >11  	if (_crash_kexec_post_notifiers || panic_print)
> >12                 __crash_kexec(NULL);
> >  	...
> >  	debug_locks_off();
> >          console_flush_on_panic(CONSOLE_FLUSH_PENDING);
> >  
> >          panic_print_sys_info(true);
> >  	......
> >  }
> >[...] 
> > I don't get. Why it has to *require* users to make use of
> > "crash_kexec_post_notifiers" in order to use "panic_print"? 
> > To enable panic notifiers and panic_print, we need add below parameter
> > to kernel cmdline separately.
> > 
> > 	crash_kexec_post_notifiers=1
> >         panic_print=0x7f
> > 
> > With above code, we have:
> > 1) None specified in cmdline, only kdump enabled.
> >    Crash dump will work to get vmcore.
> > 2) crash_kexec_post_notifiers=1 , kdump enabled
> >    panic_notifers are executed, then crash dump
> > 3) panic_print=0x7f, kdump enabled,
> >    Panic_print get system info printed, then crash dump
> > 4) crash_kexec_post_notifiers=1 panic_print=0x7f, kdump enabled
> >    panic_notifers are executed firstly, then panic_print, at last crash dump
> > 
> > Here I don't list the no kdump enabled case. Please help point out if I
> > misunderstood anything.
> 
> OK, this is a really great summary list of the possible cases, thanks
> for that. I might be wrong here, this code is a bit confusing for
> me...so I put line numbers in your code and we can discuss based on that.
> 
> Case (1) - Line L2 is reached, we jump to the kdump kernel, right?
> Case (2) - Line L5 and lines L8->L12 executed, correct?
> 
> Case (3) - I don't understand this case! If kdump is enabled and
> panic_print as well, we execute Line L2 right? If that's not the case,
> then we jump to kdump kernel at line L12, but that means L8 was
> executed, the notifiers list. Right?
> 
> So, how is it possible in your code to execute
> "panic_print_sys_info(false);" and then jump to kdump *without* reaching L8?
> 
> I apologize in advance if I'm silly and it's obvious - I guess I won't
> get the C-programmer-prize of the year anyway heheh

It's my bad. My thought is panic_print and kmsg_dump can be coupled, but
they should decouple with panic_notifier. When panic_print is enabled,
we do not expect to execute panic_notifier? My personal opinion.

I missed the change at line 8, sorry for the caused misunderstanding. 
Now the chance of holding C-programmer-prize of the year comes back
again.

  void panic()
  {
1         if (!_crash_kexec_post_notifiers && !panic_print) {
2                 __crash_kexec(NULL);
3                 smp_send_stop();
4         } else {
5                 crash_smp_send_stop();
6         }
  
  	if (_crash_kexec_post_notifiers)
8  		atomic_notifier_call_chain(&panic_notifier_list, 0, buf);
9  	panic_print_sys_info(false);
10  	kmsg_dump(KMSG_DUMP_PANIC);
11  	if (_crash_kexec_post_notifiers || panic_print)
12                 __crash_kexec(NULL);
  	...
  	debug_locks_off();
          console_flush_on_panic(CONSOLE_FLUSH_PENDING);
  
          panic_print_sys_info(true);
  	......
  }

> 
> 
> >> Sure, I'll rename "after_kmsg_dumpers" to "console_flush" in next
> >> iteration, although my nerd side won't be so happy ;-)
> > 
> > No offence at all. My wife always call me nerd. Sorry about that.
> 
> No offense taken, and no need to be sorry - we're cool!
> I got the joke =D
> 
> And the variable name suggestion was indeed good.
>