From: "bhe@redhat.com" <bhe@redhat.com>
To: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@igalia.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
"d.hatayama@fujitsu.com" <d.hatayama@fujitsu.com>,
"kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"dyoung@redhat.com" <dyoung@redhat.com>,
"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
"vgoyal@redhat.com" <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
"stern@rowland.harvard.edu" <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com"
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
"corbet@lwn.net" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"halves@canonical.com" <halves@canonical.com>,
"kernel@gpiccoli.net" <kernel@gpiccoli.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] notifier/panic: Introduce panic_notifier_filter
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:42:21 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YiV/HbXftVF2iAvU@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <73011b6f-084b-43f5-cc01-1818a8a57e56@igalia.com>
On 03/06/22 at 11:21am, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> On 28/01/2022 10:38, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > [...]
> > I think about the following solution:
> >
> > + split the notifiers into three lists:
> >
> > + info: stop watchdogs, provide extra info
> > + hypervisor: poke hypervisor
> > + reboot: actions needed only when crash dump did not happen
> >
> > + allow to call hypervisor notifiers before or after kdump
> >
> > + stop CPUs before kdump when either hypervisor notifiers or
> > kmsg_dump is enabled
> >
> > Note that it still allows to call kdump as the first action when
> > hypervisor notifiers are called after kdump and no kmsg dumper
> > is registered.
> >
> >
> > void panic(void)
> > {
> > [...]
> >
> > if (crash_kexec_post_hypervisor || panic_print || enabled_kmsg_dump()) {
> > /*
> > * Stop CPUs when some extra action is required before
> > * crash dump. We will need architecture dependent extra
> > * works in addition to stopping other CPUs.
> > */
> > crash_smp_send_stop();
> > cpus_stopped = true;
> > }
> >
> > if (crash_kexec_post_hypervisor) {
> > /* Tell hypervisor about the panic */
> > atomic_notifier_call_chain(&panic_hypervisor_notifier_list, 0, buf);
> > }
> >
> > if (enabled_kmsg_dump) {
> > /*
> > * Print extra info by notifiers.
> > * Prevent rumors, for example, by stopping watchdogs.
> > */
> > atomic_notifier_call_chain(&panic_info_notifier_list, 0, buf);
> > }
> >
> > /* Optional extra info */
> > panic_printk_sys_info();
> >
> > /* No dumper by default */
> > kmsg_dump();
> >
> > /* Used only when crash kernel loaded */
> > __crash_kexec(NULL);
> >
> > if (!cpus_stopped) {
> > /*
> > * Note smp_send_stop is the usual smp shutdown function, which
> > * unfortunately means it may not be hardened to work in a
> > * panic situation.
> > */
> > smp_send_stop();
> > }
> >
> > if (!crash_kexec_post_hypervisor) {
> > /* Tell hypervisor about the panic */
> > atomic_notifier_call_chain(&panic_hypervisor_notifier_list, 0, buf);
> > }
> >
> > if (!enabled_kmsg_dump) {
> > /*
> > * Print extra info by notifiers.
> > * Prevent rumors, for example, by stopping watchdogs.
> > */
> > atomic_notifier_call_chain(&panic_info_notifier_list, 0, buf);
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > * Help to reboot a safe way.
> > */
> > atomic_notifier_call_chain(&panic_reboot_notifier_list, 0, buf);
> >
> > [...]
> > }
> >
> > Any opinion?
> > Do the notifier list names make sense?
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Petr
>
>
> Hi folks, I'm working on this now, and while looking into it I've
> noticed that we have the concept of "priority" in the notifiers list.
> Basically, you can order the calls the way it fits best, priority is an
> integer and must the set in the moment of registration, it's up to the
> users of the notifiers to set it and enforce the ordering.
>
> So what I'm thinking is: currently, only 3 or 4 panic notifiers make use
> of that. What if, since we're re-working this, we add a priority for
> *all* notifiers and enforce its usage? This way we guarantee
> consistency, it'd make debug easier and maybe even more important:
> having all the notifiers and their priorities in a list present in the
> header file would be great documentation about all the existing
> notifiers and how they are called - today this information is quite
> obscure and requires lots of code grepping!
>
> Let me know your thoughts Petr / Baoquan - it would add slightly more
> code / complexity, but in my opinion the payback is very good.
> Cheers,
The ideal situation is each panic notifier has an order or index to
indicate its priority. Wondering how to make it. What I think of is
copying initcall. We have several priorities, at the same priority,
execution sequence is not important. Not sure if I get your point.
~~~~~~~
#define core_initcall(fn) __define_initcall(fn, 1)
#define core_initcall_sync(fn) __define_initcall(fn, 1s)
......
#define late_initcall(fn) __define_initcall(fn, 7)
#define late_initcall_sync(fn) __define_initcall(fn, 7s)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-07 3:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-08 15:34 [PATCH V4] notifier/panic: Introduce panic_notifier_filter Guilherme G. Piccoli
2022-01-14 19:03 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
[not found] ` <CALu+AoR+GrCpf0gqsx_XYETBGUAfRyP+SPNarK179hT7iQmCqQ@mail.gmail.com>
2022-01-18 13:22 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2022-01-16 13:11 ` Baoquan He
2022-01-17 12:59 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2022-01-20 15:14 ` Petr Mladek
2022-01-21 20:31 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2022-01-22 10:55 ` Baoquan He
2022-01-23 13:07 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2022-01-24 13:59 ` Baoquan He
2022-01-24 14:48 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2022-01-26 3:10 ` Baoquan He
2022-01-26 12:20 ` d.hatayama
2022-01-26 13:20 ` Petr Mladek
2022-01-30 8:50 ` Baoquan He
2022-01-24 11:43 ` d.hatayama
2022-01-24 14:15 ` Baoquan He
2022-01-25 11:50 ` d.hatayama
2022-01-25 12:34 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2022-01-25 13:06 ` d.hatayama
2022-01-27 17:16 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2022-01-28 13:38 ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-08 18:51 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2022-02-09 0:31 ` bhe
2022-02-10 16:39 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2022-02-10 17:26 ` Michael Kelley (LINUX)
2022-02-10 17:50 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2022-03-06 14:21 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2022-03-07 3:42 ` bhe [this message]
2022-03-07 13:11 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2022-03-07 14:04 ` bhe
2022-03-07 14:25 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2022-03-08 12:54 ` Petr Mladek
2022-03-08 13:04 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
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=YiV/HbXftVF2iAvU@MiWiFi-R3L-srv \
--to=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=d.hatayama@fujitsu.com \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=gpiccoli@igalia.com \
--cc=halves@canonical.com \
--cc=kernel@gpiccoli.net \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=vgoyal@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).