Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757679Ab2B2KpA (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:45:00 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20199 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757366Ab2B2Ko5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:44:57 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:44:49 +0200 From: Gleb Natapov To: Avi Kivity Cc: Wen Congyang , kvm list , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , "Daniel P. Berrange" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: notify host when guest paniced Message-ID: <20120229104449.GG24600@redhat.com> References: <4F4AF1FB.6000903@cn.fujitsu.com> <4F4CB926.6050600@redhat.com> <4F4D7F5E.5040202@cn.fujitsu.com> <4F4DF4C6.90609@redhat.com> <20120229095557.GE24600@redhat.com> <4F4DF749.7060507@redhat.com> <20120229100550.GF24600@redhat.com> <4F4DF913.5030809@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F4DF913.5030809@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1940 Lines: 47 On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:08:19PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 02/29/2012 12:05 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:00:41PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > On 02/29/2012 11:55 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about using a virtio-serial channel for this? You can transfer any > > > > > amount of information (including the dump itself). > > > > > > > > > Isn't it unreliable after the guest panicked? > > > > > > So is calling hypercalls, or dumping, or writing to the screen. Of > > > course calling a hypercall is simpler and so is more reliable. > > > > > Yes, crash can be so severe that it is not even detected by a kernel > > itself, so not OOPS message even printed. But in most cases if kernel is > > functional enough to print OOPS it is functional enough to call single > > hypercall instruction. > > Why not print the oops to virtio-serial? Or even just a regular serial > port? That's what bare metal does. > The more interface is complex the more chances it will fail during panic. Regular serial is likely more reliable than virtio-serial. Hypercall is likely more reliable than uart. On serial user can fake panic notification. Can this be problematic? > > > > Having special kdump > > > > kernel that transfers dump to a host via virtio-serial channel though > > > > sounds interesting. May be that's what you mean. > > > > > > Yes. The "panic, starting dump" signal should be initiated by the > > > panicking kernel though, in case the dump fails. > > > > > Then panic hypercall sounds like a reasonable solution. > > It is, but I'm trying to see if we can get away with doing nothing. > Fair enough. -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/