Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 30 Jul 2018 17:57:57 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To:     Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arm64: kexec: machine_kexec should call
 __flush_icache_range
Message-ID: <20180730165757.GF4276@arm.com>
References: <faf6c7cb-d9da-9a9c-cc0f-43c95e864ca2@oracle.com>
 <e07fc674-2a71-29ae-2212-46ee5f79593d@oracle.com>
 <20180730161641.6zxxy3lxp27tznck@armageddon.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20180730162235.GC4276@arm.com>
 <2651847f-79ea-fe2a-c1d7-efe4d11702b4@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2651847f-79ea-fe2a-c1d7-efe4d11702b4@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:46:24AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On 07/30/2018 11:22 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 05:16:42PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:29:21AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> >>> machine_kexec flushes the reboot_code_buffer from the icache
> >>> after stopping the other cpus.
> >>>
> >>> Commit 3b8c9f1cdfc5 ("arm64: IPI each CPU after invalidating the I-cache
> >>> for kernel mappings") added an IPI call to flush_icache_range, which
> >>> causes a hang here, so replace the call with __flush_icache_range
> >>
> >> While machine_kexec() may be called with interrupts disabled (IIUC) and
> >> we shouldn't IPI other CPUs, I don't understand why it hangs here. Are
> >> there any other CPUs online at this point?
> > 
> > The BUG_ON and WARN_ON at the start of machine_kexec() suggest to me that
> > this should only happen if we're kexec'ing a crash kernel and
> > smp_crash_stop_failed(). Is that something we need to care about?
> 
> I observed the hang trying to kexec a crash kernel and I did not see the
> warning that smp_crash_stop_failed(). I'm not exactly sure why
> flush_icache_range() hung (but it did), but I think that
> __flush_icache_range() makes more sense here anyway.

Yeah, I'll pick the patch up, but it would be nice to understand the
failure case you observed.

Will