Message-ID: <50856DFE.8000601@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:02:06 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121016 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com>
CC: fenghua.yu@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org, x86@kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
        tglx@linutronix.de, len.brown@intel.com, vgoyal@redhat.com,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, grant.likely@secretlab.ca,
        rob.herring@calxeda.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] x86, apic: Disable BSP if boot cpu is AP
References: <3E5A0FA7E9CA944F9D5414FEC6C7122030B0DD68@ORSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com> <20121016.140313.279437418.d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com> <3E5A0FA7E9CA944F9D5414FEC6C7122030B0DD91@ORSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com> <20121016.153817.42643171.d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121016.153817.42643171.d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1851
Lines: 44

On 10/15/2012 11:38 PM, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote:
>
> Thanks for pointing out this. And I've recalled my investigation in
> the past now. So I want to stop retrying your patch v9 now. This NMI
> method is definitely not applicable to 2nd kernel without any change.
>
> Your NMI method assumes BSP thread is halting in play dead loop. But
> on the 2nd kernel, BSP is halting in the 1st kernel (or possibly in a
> fatail system error). Even if throwing NMI to BSP, it goes back to the
> 1st kernel soon again. I at least confirmed NMI handler is executed in
> this case.
>
> Also, throwing NMI changes stack in the 1st kernel, which is
> unpermissible from kdump's perspective. But x86_64 uses Interrupt
> Stack Table (IST), in which stack switching is not performed. So 2nd
> kernel's stack is used at least on x86_64.
>
> To sum up, to apply NMI method in the 2nd kernel, I think it necessary
> to modify contexts pushed on the stack so execution goes to the 2nd
> kernel's start_secondary() while initializing its state
> appropreately.
>
> Also I think it necessary to discuss whether this NMI method is
> reliable enough for kdump use.
>

I think it's pretty clear it is *not*.  NMI or monitor would either have 
to rely on context set up by the first kernel, which simply isn't safe. 
  Out of those two options, a monitor would actually be safer, since it 
can be self-contained in a completely different way.

However, it seems that running on N-1 CPUs in kdump is perfectly acceptable.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/