On 13/10/16 04:48, Mahesh Jagannath Salgaonkar wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 04:22 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mah...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>> From: Mahesh Salgaonkar <mah...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> There are chances that multiple CPUs can call crash_fadump() simultaneously
>>> and would start duplicating same info to vmcoreinfo ELF note section. This
>>> causes makedumpfile to fail during kdump capture. One example is,
>>> triggering dumprestart from HMC which sends system reset to all the CPUs at
>>> once.
>> ...
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/fadump.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/fadump.c
>>> index b3a6633..2ed9d1c 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/fadump.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/fadump.c
>>> @@ -402,8 +402,14 @@ void crash_fadump(struct pt_regs *regs, const char 
>>> *str)
>>>  {
>>>     struct fadump_crash_info_header *fdh = NULL;
>>> -   if (!fw_dump.dump_registered || !fw_dump.fadumphdr_addr)
>>> +   mutex_lock(&fadump_mutex);
>> What happens when a crashing CPU can't get the mutex and goes to sleep?
> Got your point. I think I should use mutex_trylock() here. There is only
> two reason crashing CPU can't get mutex, 1) Another CPU also crashing
> that got the mutex and on its way to trigger fadump. OR 2) We are in
> middle of fadump register/un-register, in which case we can just return
> and go to normal panic.

I think trylock is a good idea, but having said that not getting the lock
and having the CPU active will still lead to the same issue. 
I don't quite know the source of failure in makedumpfile but
should we fix makedumpfile to deal better with these issues?

Another option is to check to see if anyone started writing at the ELF
note section and have others bail out if they get there after the try

Balbir Singh.

Reply via email to