From: Xunlei Pang <xpang@redhat.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>, Xunlei Pang <xlpang@redhat.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>,
Junichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>,
Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/mce: Don't participate in rendezvous process once nmi_shootdown_cpus() was made
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:04:50 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <58AE7B82.2040008@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170222185015.GA6141@intel.com>
On 02/23/2017 at 02:50 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:11:14PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * Cases to bail out to avoid rendezvous process timeout:
>> + * 1)If this CPU is offline.
>> + * 2)If crashing_cpu was set, e.g. entering kdump,
>> + * we need to skip cpus remaining in 1st kernel.
>> + */
>> + if (cpu_is_offline(cpu) ||
>> + (crashing_cpu != -1 && crashing_cpu != cpu)) {
>> u64 mcgstatus;
>>
>> mcgstatus = mce_rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_MCG_STATUS);
>
> I think we should document the remaining race conditions. I don't
> think there is any good way to eliminate them, and they are already
> pretty small windows.
>
> I think the sequence of events looks like:
>
> 1 Panic occurs
> 2 nmi_shootdown_cpus() sets crashing_cpu
> 3 send NMI to everyone else
> 4 wait up to a second for other CPUs to take NMI
> 5 go to kexec code
> 6 start new kernel
> 7 new kernel establishes #MC handler
>
> If one of the other cpus triggers a machine check while
> getting to, or in, the NMI handler ... then that cpu will
> skip processing (if RIPV is set).
>
> Between '2' and '5' if crashing_cpu gets a machine check it
> will execute in the old kernel handler, and do the right thing.
>
> There's a fuzzy area between '6' and '7' where a machine check
> might not end up in the right code.
>
> From '7' onwards the kexec kernel will handle and machine
> checks caused by kdump.
>
Agree, will update the comment.
Regards,
Xunlei
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-23 6:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-22 4:11 [PATCH v3] x86/mce: Don't participate in rendezvous process once nmi_shootdown_cpus() was made Xunlei Pang
2017-02-22 18:50 ` Luck, Tony
2017-02-23 6:04 ` Xunlei Pang [this message]
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=58AE7B82.2040008@redhat.com \
--to=xpang@redhat.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com \
--cc=k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
--cc=prarit@redhat.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xlpang@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox