Kexec Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@oracle.com>
To: kexec@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v8 3/7] crash: add generic infrastructure for crash hotplug support
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 11:10:28 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e4120abd-c3ac-ee4d-1a0d-260126914b09@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <62089f7b-4a3e-7dc8-1cda-84583e19d6fd@redhat.com>

David,
Great questions! See inline responses below.
eric

On 5/12/22 03:52, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 05.05.22 20:45, Eric DeVolder wrote:
>> CPU and memory change notifications are received in order to
>> regenerate the elfcorehdr.
>>
>> To support cpu hotplug, a callback is registered to capture the
>> CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN online and offline events via
>> cpuhp_setup_state_nocalls().
>>
>> To support memory hotplug, a notifier is registered to capture the
>> MEM_ONLINE and MEM_OFFLINE events via register_memory_notifier().
>>
>> The cpu callback and memory notifiers call handle_hotplug_event()
>> to handle the hot plug/unplug event. Then handle_hotplug_event()
>> dispatches the event to the architecture specific
>> arch_crash_handle_hotplug_event(). During the process, the
>> kexec_mutex is held.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@oracle.com>
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) || defined(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG)
>> +void __weak arch_crash_handle_hotplug_event(struct kimage *image,
>> +							unsigned int hp_action, unsigned int cpu)
>> +{
>> +	WARN(1, "crash hotplug handler not implemented");
> 
> 
> Won't that trigger on any arch that has CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU and CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG?
> I mean, you only implement it for x86 later in this series. Or what else stops this WARN from
> triggering?
> 
You're correct. What about: printk_once(KERN_DEBUG "...") ?

>> +}
>> +
>> +static void handle_hotplug_event(unsigned int hp_action, unsigned int cpu)
>> +{
>> +	/* Obtain lock while changing crash information */
>> +	if (!mutex_trylock(&kexec_mutex))
>> +		return;
> 
> This looks wrong. What if you offline memory but for some reason the mutex
> is currently locked? You'd miss updating the vmcore, which would be broken.
> 
> Why is this trylock in place? Some workaround for potential locking issues,
> or what is the rationale?

I took this from kernel/kexec.c:do_my_load(), but you are right, this is not
right.

      *
      * KISS: always take the mutex.
      */
     if (!mutex_trylock(&kexec_mutex))
         return -EBUSY;

This should simply be mutex_lock(&kexec_mutex).

> 
>> +
>> +	/* Check kdump is loaded */
>> +	if (kexec_crash_image) {
>> +		pr_debug("crash hp: hp_action %u, cpu %u", hp_action, cpu);
>> +
>> +		/* Needed in order for the segments to be updated */
>> +		arch_kexec_unprotect_crashkres();
>> +
>> +		/* Flag to differentiate between normal load and hotplug */
>> +		kexec_crash_image->hotplug_event = true;
> 
> 1. Why is that required? Why can't arch_crash_handle_hotplug_event() forward that
> information? I mean, *hotplug* in the anme implies that the function should be
> aware what's happening.
Member .hotplug_event is needed in crash_prepare_elf64_headers(). To date, it has made
sense (to me) to pass this parameter to crash_prepare_elf64_headers() via the
struct kimage, rather than directly. The patch "crash: prototype change for 
crash_prepare_elf64_headers" changes crash_prepare_elf64_headers() to accept the
struct kimage. If it is so desired, it could just as well be changed to pass just
this one parameter; though struct kimage seems a more useful way to go.

> 
> 2. Why can't the unprotect+reprotect not be done inside
> arch_crash_handle_hotplug_event() ? It's all arch specific either way.
> 
> IMHO, this code here should be as simple as
> 
> if (kexec_crash_image)
> 	arch_crash_handle_hotplug_event(kexec_crash_image, hp_action, cpu);
> 

The intent of this code was to be generic infrastructure. Just invoking the
arch_crash_handle_hotplug_event() would certainly be as generic as it gets.
But there were a series of steps that seemed to be common, so those I hoisted
into this bit of code.

> 3. Why do we have to forward the CPU for CPU onlining/offlining but not the
> memory block id (or similar) when onlining/offlining a memory block?
 From patch "kexec: exclude hot remove cpu from elfcorehdr notes" commit message:

Due to use of CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN, upon CPU unplug, the CPU is
still in the for_each_present_cpu() list when within the
handle_hotplug_event(). Thus the CPU must be explicitly excluded
when building the new list of CPUs.

This change identifies in handle_hotplug_event() the CPU to be
excluded, and the check for excluding the CPU in
crash_prepare_elf64_headers().

If there is a better CPUHP_ to use than _DYN, I'd be all for that!

> 
>> +
>> +		/* Now invoke arch-specific update handler */
>> +		arch_crash_handle_hotplug_event(kexec_crash_image, hp_action, cpu);
>> +
>> +		/* No longer handling a hotplug event */
>> +		kexec_crash_image->hotplug_event = false;
>> +
>> +		/* Change back to read-only */
>> +		arch_kexec_protect_crashkres();
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* Release lock now that update complete */
>> +	mutex_unlock(&kexec_mutex);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int crash_memhp_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val, void *v)
>> +{
>> +	switch (val) {
>> +	case MEM_ONLINE:
>> +		handle_hotplug_event(KEXEC_CRASH_HP_ADD_MEMORY, 0);
>> +		break;
>> +
>> +	case MEM_OFFLINE:
>> +		handle_hotplug_event(KEXEC_CRASH_HP_REMOVE_MEMORY, 0);
>> +		break;
>> +	}
>> +	return NOTIFY_OK;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct notifier_block crash_memhp_nb = {
>> +	.notifier_call = crash_memhp_notifier,
>> +	.priority = 0
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int crash_cpuhp_online(unsigned int cpu)
>> +{
>> +	handle_hotplug_event(KEXEC_CRASH_HP_ADD_CPU, cpu);
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int crash_cpuhp_offline(unsigned int cpu)
>> +{
>> +	handle_hotplug_event(KEXEC_CRASH_HP_REMOVE_CPU, cpu);
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int __init crash_hotplug_init(void)
>> +{
>> +	int result = 0;
>> +
>> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG))
>> +		register_memory_notifier(&crash_memhp_nb);
>> +
>> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU))
>> +		result = cpuhp_setup_state_nocalls(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN,
>> +									"crash/cpuhp",
>> +									crash_cpuhp_online,
>> +									crash_cpuhp_offline);
> 
> Ehm, this indentation looks very weird.
> 
>> +
>> +	return result;
>> +}
>> +
>> +subsys_initcall(crash_hotplug_init);
>> +#endif
> 
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2022-05-12 16:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-05 18:45 [PATCH v8 0/7] crash: Kernel handling of CPU and memory hot un/plug Eric DeVolder
2022-05-05 18:45 ` [PATCH v8 1/7] x86/crash: fix minor typo/bug in debug message Eric DeVolder
     [not found]   ` <72764a3c-8b8c-8652-945e-9b15f31cda15@linux.ibm.com>
2022-05-09  5:26     ` Baoquan He
2022-05-09 15:41       ` Eric DeVolder
2022-05-05 18:45 ` [PATCH v8 2/7] crash: prototype change for crash_prepare_elf64_headers Eric DeVolder
2022-05-12  8:42   ` David Hildenbrand
2022-05-12 16:10     ` Eric DeVolder
2022-05-05 18:45 ` [PATCH v8 3/7] crash: add generic infrastructure for crash hotplug support Eric DeVolder
2022-05-06  7:12   ` Baoquan He
2022-05-09 15:43     ` Eric DeVolder
2022-05-11 10:09       ` Baoquan He
2022-05-12  8:52   ` David Hildenbrand
2022-05-12 16:10     ` Eric DeVolder [this message]
2022-05-31 13:15       ` David Hildenbrand
2022-05-31 22:25         ` Eric DeVolder
2022-06-15  9:53           ` David Hildenbrand
2022-05-23  8:36   ` Sourabh Jain
2022-05-23 15:04     ` Eric DeVolder
2022-05-05 18:46 ` [PATCH v8 4/7] kexec: exclude elfcorehdr from the segment digest Eric DeVolder
2022-05-11 10:11   ` Baoquan He
2022-05-05 18:46 ` [PATCH v8 5/7] kexec: exclude hot remove cpu from elfcorehdr notes Eric DeVolder
2022-05-11 10:13   ` Baoquan He
2022-05-05 18:46 ` [PATCH v8 6/7] x86/crash: Add x86 crash hotplug support for kexec_file_load Eric DeVolder
2022-05-25  5:25   ` Sourabh Jain
2022-05-25 13:51     ` Eric DeVolder
2022-05-05 18:46 ` [PATCH v8 7/7] x86/crash: Add x86 crash hotplug support for kexec_load Eric DeVolder
2022-05-25 14:26   ` Sourabh Jain
2022-05-31 22:18     ` Eric DeVolder
2022-05-25 15:13 ` [PATCH v8 0/7] crash: Kernel handling of CPU and memory hot un/plug Sourabh Jain
2022-05-26 13:16   ` Eric DeVolder
2022-05-26 13:39     ` Sourabh Jain
2022-05-26 13:44       ` Eric DeVolder
2022-05-31 13:18       ` David Hildenbrand
2022-05-31 22:22         ` Eric DeVolder

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=e4120abd-c3ac-ee4d-1a0d-260126914b09@oracle.com \
    --to=eric.devolder@oracle.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox