From: Sourabh Jain <sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
Sachin P Bappalige <sachinpb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec/crash: no crash update when kexec in progress
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 14:07:58 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c6f30e31-69fe-4ece-b251-c49f1ab59a04@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZtkkIoUIu8shp/ut@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Hello Baoquan,
On 05/09/24 08:53, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 09/04/24 at 02:55pm, Sourabh Jain wrote:
>> Hello Baoquan,
>>
>> On 30/08/24 16:47, Baoquan He wrote:
>>> On 08/20/24 at 12:10pm, Sourabh Jain wrote:
>>>> Hello Baoquan,
>>>>
> ......snip...
>>>> 2. A patch to return early from the `crash_handle_hotplug_event()` function
>>>> if `kexec_in_progress` is
>>>> set to True. This is essentially my original patch.
>>> There's a race gap between the kexec_in_progress checking and the
>>> setting it to true which Michael has mentioned.
>> The window where kernel is holding kexec_lock to do kexec boot
>> but kexec_in_progress is yet not set to True.
>>
>> If kernel needs to handle crash hotplug event, the function
>> crash_handle_hotplug_event() will not get the kexec_lock and
>> error out by printing error message about not able to update
>> kdump image.
> But you wanted to avoid the erroring out if it's being in
> kernel_kexec(). Now you are seeing at least one the noising
> message, aren't you?
Yes, but it is very rare to encounter.
My comments on your updated code are inline below.
>
>> I think it should be fine. Given that lock is already taken for
>> kexec kernel boot.
>>
>> Am I missing something major?
>>
>>> That's why I think
>>> maybe checking kexec_in_progress after failing to retriving
>>> __kexec_lock is a little better, not very sure.
>> Try for kexec lock before kexec_in_progress check will not solve
>> the original problem this patch trying to solve.
>>
>> You proposed the below changes earlier:
>>
>> - if (!kexec_trylock()) {
>> + if (!kexec_trylock() && kexec_in_progress) {
>> pr_info("kexec_trylock() failed, elfcorehdr may be inaccurate\n");
>> crash_hotplug_unlock();
> Ah, I meant as below, but wrote it mistakenly.
>
> diff --git a/kernel/crash_core.c b/kernel/crash_core.c
> index 63cf89393c6e..e7c7aa761f46 100644
> --- a/kernel/crash_core.c
> +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c
> @@ -504,7 +504,7 @@ int crash_check_hotplug_support(void)
>
> crash_hotplug_lock();
> /* Obtain lock while reading crash information */
> - if (!kexec_trylock()) {
> + if (!kexec_trylock() && !kexec_in_progress) {
> pr_info("kexec_trylock() failed, elfcorehdr may be inaccurate\n");
> crash_hotplug_unlock();
> return 0;
>
>
>>
>> Once the kexec_in_progress is set to True there is no way one can get
>> kexec_lock. So kexec_trylock() before kexec_in_progress is not helpful
>> for the problem I am trying to solve.
> With your patch, you could still get the error message if the race gap
> exist. With above change, you won't get it. Please correct me if I am
> wrong.
The above code will print an error message during the race gap. Here's why:
Let’s say the kexec lock is acquired in the kernel_kexec() function,
but kexec_in_progress is not yet set to True. In this scenario, the code
will print
an error message.
There is another issue I see with the above code:
Consider that the system is on the kexec kernel boot path, and
kexec_in_progress
is set to True. If crash_hotplug_unlock() is called, the kernel will not
only update
the kdump image without acquiring the kexec lock, but it will also
release the
kexec lock in the out label. I believe this is incorrect.
Please share your thoughts.
Thanks,
Sourabh Jain
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-05 8:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20240731152738.194893-1-sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com>
2024-08-01 2:34 ` [PATCH] kexec/crash: no crash update when kexec in progress Michael Ellerman
2024-08-01 6:51 ` Sourabh Jain
2024-08-19 4:15 ` Sourabh Jain
2024-08-19 6:15 ` Baoquan He
2024-08-20 6:40 ` Sourabh Jain
2024-08-30 11:17 ` Baoquan He
2024-09-04 9:25 ` Sourabh Jain
2024-09-05 3:23 ` Baoquan He
2024-09-05 8:37 ` Sourabh Jain [this message]
2024-09-08 10:30 ` Baoquan He
2024-09-09 5:05 ` Sourabh Jain
2024-09-09 5:23 ` Baoquan He
2024-09-09 5:31 ` Sourabh Jain
[not found] ` <Zqs8veRya7v/pXEt@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
2024-08-01 8:06 ` Sourabh Jain
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=c6f30e31-69fe-4ece-b251-c49f1ab59a04@linux.ibm.com \
--to=sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=hbathini@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=sachinpb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).