On 11/11/21 11:44 am, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Hari Bathini <hbath...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
In panic path, fadump is triggered via a panic notifier function.
Before calling panic notifier functions, smp_send_stop() gets called,
which stops all CPUs except the panic'ing CPU. Commit 8389b37dffdc
("powerpc: stop_this_cpu: remove the cpu from the online map.") and
again commit bab26238bbd4 ("powerpc: Offline CPU in stop_this_cpu()")
started marking CPUs as offline while stopping them. So, if a kernel
has either of the above commits, vmcore captured with fadump via panic
path would show only the panic'ing CPU as online. Sample output of
crash-utility with such vmcore:
# crash vmlinux vmcore
...
KERNEL: vmlinux
DUMPFILE: vmcore [PARTIAL DUMP]
CPUS: 1
DATE: Wed Nov 10 09:56:34 EST 2021
UPTIME: 00:00:42
LOAD AVERAGE: 2.27, 0.69, 0.24
TASKS: 183
NODENAME: XXXXXXXXX
RELEASE: 5.15.0+
VERSION: #974 SMP Wed Nov 10 04:18:19 CST 2021
MACHINE: ppc64le (2500 Mhz)
MEMORY: 8 GB
PANIC: "Kernel panic - not syncing: sysrq triggered crash"
PID: 3394
COMMAND: "bash"
TASK: c0000000150a5f80 [THREAD_INFO: c0000000150a5f80]
CPU: 1
STATE: TASK_RUNNING (PANIC)
crash> p -x __cpu_online_mask
__cpu_online_mask = $1 = {
bits = {0x2, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0}
}
crash>
crash>
crash> p -x __cpu_active_mask
__cpu_active_mask = $2 = {
bits = {0xff, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0}
}
crash>
While this has been the case since fadump was introduced, the issue
was not identified for two probable reasons:
- In general, the bulk of the vmcores analyzed were from crash
due to exception.
- The above did change since commit 8341f2f222d7 ("sysrq: Use
panic() to force a crash") started using panic() instead of
deferencing NULL pointer to force a kernel crash. But then
commit de6e5d38417e ("powerpc: smp_send_stop do not offline
stopped CPUs") stopped marking CPUs as offline till kernel
commit bab26238bbd4 ("powerpc: Offline CPU in stop_this_cpu()")
reverted that change.
To avoid vmcore from showing only one CPU as online in panic path,
skip marking non panic'ing CPUs as offline while stopping them
during fadump crash.
Is this really worth the added complexity/bug surface?
Why does it matter if the vmcore shows only one CPU online?
We lose out on backtrace/register data of non-crashing CPUs as they
are explicitly marked offline.
Actually, the state of CPU resources is explicitly changed after the
panic though the aim of vmcore is to capture the system state at the
time of panic...
Alternatively, how about moving crash_fadump() call from panic notifier
into panic() function explicitly, just like __crash_kexec() - before the
smp_send_stop() call, so as to remove dependency with smp_send_stop()
implementation altogether...
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
index c23ee842c4c3..20555d5d5966 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@
#include <asm/cpu_has_feature.h>
#include <asm/ftrace.h>
#include <asm/kup.h>
+#include <asm/fadump.h>
#ifdef DEBUG
#include <asm/udbg.h>
@@ -626,7 +627,8 @@ static void nmi_stop_this_cpu(struct pt_regs *regs)
/*
* IRQs are already hard disabled by the smp_handle_nmi_ipi.
*/
- set_cpu_online(smp_processor_id(), false);
+ if (!(oops_in_progress && should_fadump_crash()))
+ set_cpu_online(smp_processor_id(), false);
spin_begin();
while (1)
@@ -650,7 +652,8 @@ static void stop_this_cpu(void *dummy)
* to know other CPUs are offline before it breaks locks to flush
* printk buffers, in case we panic()ed while holding the lock.
*/
- set_cpu_online(smp_processor_id(), false);
+ if (!(oops_in_progress && should_fadump_crash()))
+ set_cpu_online(smp_processor_id(), false);
The comment talks about printk_safe_flush_on_panic(), and this change
would presumably break that. Except that printk_safe_flush_on_panic() no
longer exists.
So do we need to set the CPU online here at all?
ie. could we revert bab26238bbd4 ("powerpc: Offline CPU in stop_this_cpu()")
now that printk_safe_flush_on_panic() no longer exists?
Yeah, sounds like the logical thing to do but I guess, Nick would be in
a better position to answer this..
Thanks,
Hari
