From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 348E9C433F5 for ; Thu, 5 May 2022 14:52:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1380855AbiEEOzo (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 May 2022 10:55:44 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46574 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1380847AbiEEOzj (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 May 2022 10:55:39 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-74.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-74.mimecast.com [170.10.129.74]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A2156FBB for ; Thu, 5 May 2022 07:51:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1651762318; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=uM+ofZNcfgbacCYmlCH29DRYVtctL+nEHY0EJrvY55Y=; b=AsMVoOj5RR2T7fIl62bIhAYSeht0nMfldc84T2HgkOn2K2+1vUCyOsEjeEDAPy43ptosYw xLhnYc487J9SS6K2tUJUtcIDDrAjP5/yI2IocvZztzi2ma+Xqmpk0ATE9Jb8gaskWqIt1c kjFOnedYsMtRa7OmusYLPMY/BI7qUws= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-101-bgtXw1kJNk2TCtSyx28gWA-1; Thu, 05 May 2022 10:51:58 -0400 X-MC-Unique: bgtXw1kJNk2TCtSyx28gWA-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id o24-20020a05600c379800b003943412e81dso1848075wmr.6 for ; Thu, 05 May 2022 07:51:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=uM+ofZNcfgbacCYmlCH29DRYVtctL+nEHY0EJrvY55Y=; b=A4P7uCaf/ai/hiT9/xyZC8YJ5r0zgx6ZiSvxDk78HwYuQWfQsae3EqTKBr98eWSm0U 3fnbFM7hLU1XW09KD7cBk4nPxLA8PTyUFH0vT168Merxy7f9Xcgxu1prbfwZsQO8hV1X 8kzOqJ1B2Vrs9US7/lS7AomPcWbnaFlQwJnMtPt6xWMvVAgwmn5532Qrpq9OOWKbrjgY bDAAg0MWMTuSkOoO/89sO1BupZAwEaU4YTXY3b+LGSk+BN6pHSr1oCm3/ns2yvD1mGKb YW7ldS0uD09riG8LOpbaJtaZMhcgYlVqxGOcksQHXNyhJMmuRM3YtIwKloNfgJgI7FuV iGeg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532b91ViuOqd4GvMDtdiWY5MOzwAd4Fyhjmbmpu6zjqoIaNlmWKh pVMfs6TBml8d8lz9Uow1O/IqES9XuKBDeZ+g1ICEiS3Ukkr2mAqUkTlvbC0lJkuI4NWvKmEZ5fX DM8gkcVZYVyPO2sKspy0dggw9 X-Received: by 2002:a1c:6a1a:0:b0:394:272e:5bdf with SMTP id f26-20020a1c6a1a000000b00394272e5bdfmr5347729wmc.55.1651762316173; Thu, 05 May 2022 07:51:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwzZ199d4B0hb5YxHFT/G5vw6e8Q1vc2C0FJNM5txW7lPwaFe4IrmxdRb6YfGAM2P9o3lQ5lw== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:6a1a:0:b0:394:272e:5bdf with SMTP id f26-20020a1c6a1a000000b00394272e5bdfmr5347690wmc.55.1651762315893; Thu, 05 May 2022 07:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fedora (nat-2.ign.cz. [91.219.240.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 25-20020a05600c029900b003942a244ed1sm1524096wmk.22.2022.05.05.07.51.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 05 May 2022 07:51:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Vitaly Kuznetsov To: Mark Rutland Cc: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" , "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" , Marc Zyngier , Catalin Marinas , will Deacon , Russell King , Ard Biesheuvel , broonie@kernel.org, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , linux-kernel , "linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Should arm64 have a custom crash shutdown handler? In-Reply-To: References: <427a8277-49f0-4317-d6c3-4a15d7070e55@igalia.com> <874k24igjf.wl-maz@kernel.org> <92645c41-96fd-2755-552f-133675721a24@igalia.com> <3bee47db-f771-b502-82a3-d6fac388aa89@igalia.com> <878rrg13zb.fsf@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 16:51:54 +0200 Message-ID: <87y1zgyqut.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mark Rutland writes: > On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 03:52:24PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> "Guilherme G. Piccoli" writes: >> >> > On 05/05/2022 09:53, Mark Rutland wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> Looking at those, the cleanup work is all arch-specific. What exactly would we >> >> need to do on arm64, and why does it need to happen at that point specifically? >> >> On arm64 we don't expect as much paravirtualization as on x86, so it's not >> >> clear to me whether we need anything at all. >> >> >> >>> Anyway, the idea here was to gather a feedback on how "receptive" arm64 >> >>> community would be to allow such customization, appreciated your feedback =) >> >> >> >> ... and are you trying to do this for Hyper-V or just using that as an example? >> >> >> >> I think we're not going to be very receptive without a more concrete example of >> >> what you want. >> >> >> >> What exactly do *you* need, and *why*? Is that for Hyper-V or another hypervisor? >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Mark. >> > >> > Hi Mark, my plan would be doing that for Hyper-V - kind of the same >> > code, almost. For example, in hv_crash_handler() there is a stimer >> > clean-up and the vmbus unload - my understanding is that this same code >> > would need to run in arm64. Michael Kelley is CCed, he was discussing >> > with me in the panic notifiers thread and may elaborate more on the needs. >> > >> > But also (not related with my specific plan), I've seen KVM quiesce code >> > on x86 as well [see kvm_crash_shutdown() on arch/x86] , I'm not sure if >> > this is necessary for arm64 or if this already executing in some >> > abstracted form, I didn't dig deep - probably Vitaly is aware of that, >> > hence I've CCed him here. >> >> Speaking about the difference between reboot notifiers call chain and >> machine_ops.crash_shutdown for KVM/x86, the main difference is that >> reboot notifier is called on some CPU while the VM is fully functional, >> this way we may e.g. still use IPIs (see kvm_pv_reboot_notify() doing >> on_each_cpu()). When we're in a crash situation, >> machine_ops.crash_shutdown is called on the CPU which crashed. We can't >> count on IPIs still being functional so we do the very basic minimum so >> *this* CPU can boot kdump kernel. There's no guarantee other CPUs can >> still boot but normally we do kdump with 'nprocs=1'. > > Sure; IIUC the IPI problem doesn't apply to arm64, though, since that doesn't > use a PV mechanism (and practically speaking will either be GICv2 or GICv3). > This isn't really about PV: when the kernel is crashing, you have no idea what's going on on other CPUs, they may be crashing too, locked in a tight loop, ... so sending an IPI there to do some work and expecting it to report back is dangerous. >> For Hyper-V, the situation is similar: hv_crash_handler() intitiates >> VMbus unload on the crashing CPU only, there's no mechanism to do >> 'global' unload so other CPUs will likely not be able to connect Vmbus >> devices in kdump kernel but this should not be necessary. > > Given kdump is best-effort (and we can't rely on secondary CPUs even making it > into the kdump kernel), I also don't think that should be necessary. Yes, exactly. > >> There's a crash_kexec_post_notifiers mechanism which can be used instead >> but it's disabled by default so using machine_ops.crash_shutdown is >> better. > > Another option is to defer this to the kdump kernel. On arm64 at least, we know > if we're in a kdump kernel early on, and can reset some state based upon that. > > Looking at x86's hyperv_cleanup(), everything relevant to arm64 can be deferred > to just before the kdump kernel detects and initializes anything relating to > hyperv. So AFAICT we could have hyperv_init() check is_kdump_kernel() prior to > the first hypercall, and do the cleanup/reset there. In theory yes, it is possible to try sending CHANNELMSG_UNLOAD on kdump kernel boot and not upon crash, I don't remember if this approach was tried in the past. > > Maybe we need more data for the vmbus bits? ... if so it seems that could blow > up anyway when the first kernel was tearing down. Not sure I understood what you mean... From what I remember, there were issues with CHANNELMSG_UNLOAD handling on the Hyper-V host side in the past (it was taking *minutes* for the host to reply) but this is orthogonal to the fact that we need to do this cleanup so kdump kernel is able to connect to Vmbus devices again. -- Vitaly