Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 7 Sep 2020 18:23:38 +0200
From:   peterz@infradead.org
To:     Joerg Vehlow <lkml@jv-coder.de>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Joerg Vehlow <joerg.vehlow@aox-tech.de>
Subject: Re: [BUG RT] dump-capture kernel not executed for panic in interrupt
 context
Message-ID: <20200907162338.GN1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200528084614.0c949e8d@gandalf.local.home>
 <cbbf7926-148e-7acb-dc03-3f055d73364b@jv-coder.de>
 <20200727163655.8c94c8e245637b62311f5053@linux-foundation.org>
 <c6b095af-fc92-420f-303f-d2efd9f28873@jv-coder.de>
 <20200821110848.6c3183d1@oasis.local.home>
 <20200821134753.9547695c9b782275be3c95b5@linux-foundation.org>
 <20200821170334.73b52fdd@oasis.local.home>
 <95d7a489-a295-1c11-ac62-83e941ed3a87@jv-coder.de>
 <20200907114618.GR2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <5c3a502f-2255-5aae-3599-5220aa4b8328@jv-coder.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5c3a502f-2255-5aae-3599-5220aa4b8328@jv-coder.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 02:03:09PM +0200, Joerg Vehlow wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/7/2020 1:46 PM, peterz@infradead.org wrote:
> > I think it's too complicated for that is needed, did you see my
> > suggestion from a year ago? Did i miss something obvious?
> > 
> This one? https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20191219090535.GV2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/
> 
> I think it may be a bit incorrect?
> According to the original comment in __crash_kexec, the mutex was used to
> prevent a sys_kexec_load, while crash_kexec is executed. Your proposed patch
> does not lock the mutex in crash_kexec.

Sure, but any mutex taker will (spin) wait for panic_cpu==CPU_INVALID.
And if the mutex is already held, we'll not run __crash_kexec() just
like the trylock() would do today.

> This does not cover the original use
> case anymore. The only thing that is protected now are two panicing cores at
> the same time.

I'm not following. AFAICT it does exactly what the old code did.
Although maybe I didn't replace all kexec_mutex users, I now see that
thing isn't static.

> Actually, this implementation feels even more hacky to me....

It's more minimal ;-) It's simpler in that it only provides the required
semantics (as I understand them) and does not attempt to implement a
more general trylock() like primitive that isn't needed.

Also, read the kexec_lock() implementation you posted and explain to me
what happens when kexec_busy is elevated. Also note the lack of
confusing loops in my code.