Re: [PATCH v3] panic: add panic_force_cpu= parameter to redirect panic to a specific CPU

Petr Mladek
2026-01-05T16:50:09Z

Adding more people into Cc. I doubt that smp_call_function_single()
is reliable in panic().

On Mon 2026-01-05 10:18:08, Pnina Feder wrote:
> Some platforms require panic handling to execute on a specific CPU for
> crash dump to work reliably. This can be due to firmware limitations,
> interrupt routing constraints, or platform-specific requirements where
> only a single CPU is able to safely enter the crash kernel.
>
> Add support for redirecting panic execution to a designated CPU via a
> kernel command-line parameter. When the parameter is provided, the CPU
> that initially triggers panic forwards the panic context to the target
> CPU, which then proceeds with the normal panic and kexec flow.
>
> If the specified CPU is invalid, offline, or a panic is already in
> progress on another CPU, the redirection is skipped and panic continues
> on the current CPU.
>
> Changes since v2:
> - Make panic redirection warnings generic and platform-agnostic
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202601041820.6M8cIq2e-lkp@intel.com/
> Signed-off-by: Pnina Feder <pnina.feder@mobileye.com>
> ---
> kernel/panic.c | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 93 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/panic.c b/kernel/panic.c
> index 0d52210a9e2b..6239bcdc2463 100644
> --- a/kernel/panic.c
> +++ b/kernel/panic.c
> @@ -300,6 +300,92 @@ void __weak crash_smp_send_stop(void)
>
> atomic_t panic_cpu = ATOMIC_INIT(PANIC_CPU_INVALID);
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +/* CPU to redirect panic to, -1 means feature is disabled */
> +static int panic_force_cpu = -1;
> +
> +static int __init panic_force_cpu_setup(char *str)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (!str)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (kstrtoint(str, 0, &cpu) || cpu < 0) {
> + pr_warn("panic_force_cpu: invalid value '%s'\n", str);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + panic_force_cpu = cpu;
> + pr_info("panic_force_cpu: panic will execute on CPU %d\n", cpu);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +early_param("panic_force_cpu", panic_force_cpu_setup);
> +
> +static void do_panic_on_target_cpu(void *info)
> +{
> + panic("%s", (char *)info);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * panic_force_target_cpu - Redirect panic to a specific CPU for crash kernel
> + * @fmt: panic message format string
> + * @args: arguments for format string
> + *
> + * Some platforms require panic handling to occur on a specific CPU
> + * for the crash kernel to function correctly. This function redirects
> + * panic handling to the CPU specified via the panic_redirect_cpu= boot parameter.
> + *
> + * Returns true if panic should proceed on current CPU.
> + * Returns false (never returns) if panic was redirected.
> + */
> +__printf(1, 0)
> +static bool panic_force_target_cpu(const char *fmt, va_list args)
> +{
> + static char panic_redirect_msg[1024];
> + int cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> + int target_cpu = panic_force_cpu;
> +
> + /* Feature not enabled via boot parameter */
> + if (target_cpu < 0)
> + return true;
> +
> + /* Already on target CPU - proceed normally */
> + if (cpu == target_cpu)
> + return true;
> +
> + /* Target CPU is offline, can't redirect */
> + if (!cpu_online(target_cpu)) {
> + pr_warn("panic: target CPU %d is offline, proceeding on CPU %d.\n"
> + "Crash kernel interrupts may be unavailable.\n", target_cpu, cpu);
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> + /* Another panic already in progress */
> + if (panic_in_progress()) {
> + pr_warn("panic: Another panic in progress on CPU %d, cannot redirect to CPU %d.\n"

IMHO, this message does not add much value and should be omitted.
vpanic() does not print any message when panic_try_start() fails.

> + "Crash kernel interrupts may be unavailable.\n",

I am confused by this message.

> + atomic_read(&panic_cpu), target_cpu);
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> + pr_info("panic: Redirecting from CPU %d to CPU %d for crash kernel\n",
> + cpu, target_cpu);
> +
> + vsnprintf(panic_redirect_msg, sizeof(panic_redirect_msg), fmt, args);

The "redirect" in "panic_redirect_msg" is confusing. It has nothing
to do with redirection. It is just a buffer for the formatted panic
message. I would call it "buf" or "panic_msg".

> + smp_call_function_single(target_cpu, do_panic_on_target_cpu, panic_redirect_msg, false);

I doubt that this is safe and reliable in panic() context.
For a start, panic() might be called in NMI and this function takes csd_lock().

panic() code should avoid locks. Or is should use trylock and
handle a failure gracefully.

BTW: The commit message says that this is needed for crash-dump
to work reliably. So, it does not make sense to do this
when crash-dump is not configured.

Maybe, crash-dump should get fixed instead?
What are the exact problems with the crash-dump, please?

> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +#else
> +__printf(1, 0)
> +static inline bool panic_force_target_cpu(const char *fmt, va_list args)
> +{
> + return true;
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
> +
> bool panic_try_start(void)
> {
> int old_cpu, this_cpu;
> @@ -451,6 +537,13 @@ void vpanic(const char *fmt, va_list args)
> local_irq_disable();
> preempt_disable_notrace();
>
> + /*
> + * Redirect panic to target CPU if configured via panic_force_cpu=.
> + * Returns false and never returns if panic was redirected.
> + */
> + if (!panic_force_target_cpu(fmt, args))
> + panic_smp_self_stop();
> +
> /*
> * It's possible to come here directly from a panic-assertion and
> * not have preempt disabled. Some functions called from here want

Best Regards,
Petr