Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:18:31AM -0700, Jay Lan wrote:
> [..]
> Now user will be able to view all the die_chain users through sysfs and
> be able to modify the order in which these should run by modifying their
> priority. Hence all the RAS tools can co-exist.
Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:18:31AM -0700, Jay Lan wrote:
[..]
Now user will be able to view all the die_chain users through sysfs and
be able to modify the order in which these should run by modifying their
priority. Hence all the RAS tools can co-exist.
This is my image
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:18:31AM -0700, Jay Lan wrote:
[..]
> >>> Now user will be able to view all the die_chain users through sysfs and
> >>> be able to modify the order in which these should run by modifying their
> >>> priority. Hence all the RAS tools can co-exist.
> >> This is my image of
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 04:45:02PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> >> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >> > So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
> >>> and if it runs into issues we can
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 04:45:02PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
and if it runs into issues we can always think
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:18:31AM -0700, Jay Lan wrote:
[..]
Now user will be able to view all the die_chain users through sysfs and
be able to modify the order in which these should run by modifying their
priority. Hence all the RAS tools can co-exist.
This is my image of your proposal.
* Jay Lan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-21 15:18]:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> >> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >> > So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
> >>> and if it runs into issues we can always think
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> > So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
>>> and if it runs into issues we can always think of creating a separate list.
>>>
>>> Few things come to mind.
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> > So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
>>> and if it runs into issues we can always think of creating a separate list.
>>>
>>> Few things come to mind.
Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
and if it runs into issues we can always think of creating a separate list.
Few things come to mind.
- Why there
Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
and if it runs into issues we can always think of creating a separate list.
Few things come to mind.
- Why there
* Jay Lan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-08-21 15:18]:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
and if it runs into issues we can always think of creating a
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
> > and if it runs into issues we can always think of creating a separate list.
> >
> > Few things come to mind.
> >
> > - Why there
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:26:35PM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
and if it runs into issues we can always think of creating a separate list.
Few things come to mind.
- Why there is a separate
* Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-16 11:26]:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > - Modify Kdump to register on die_chain list.
> > - Modify Kdb to register on die_chain list.
> > - Export all the registered members of die_chain through sysfs along with
> > their priorities. Priorities should
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
> and if it runs into issues we can always think of creating a separate list.
>
> Few things come to mind.
>
> - Why there is a separate panic_notifier_list? Can't it be merged with
> die_chain?
Vivek Goyal wrote:
So for the time being I think we can put RAS tools on die notifier list
and if it runs into issues we can always think of creating a separate list.
Few things come to mind.
- Why there is a separate panic_notifier_list? Can't it be merged with
die_chain? die_val
* Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-08-16 11:26]:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
- Modify Kdump to register on die_chain list.
- Modify Kdb to register on die_chain list.
- Export all the registered members of die_chain through sysfs along with
their priorities. Priorities should be
On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 10:37:10AM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> * Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 10:34]:
> > Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > To sum up, couple of options come to mind.
> > >
> > > -
* Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 10:48]:
> Bernhard Walle wrote:
> > * Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 10:34]:
> >> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To sum up, couple of options come to mind.
>
Bernhard Walle wrote:
> * Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 10:34]:
>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> To sum up, couple of options come to mind.
>>>
>>> - Register all the RAS tools on die notifier and panic
>>>
* Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 10:34]:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> >
> >
> > To sum up, couple of options come to mind.
> >
> > - Register all the RAS tools on die notifier and panic
> > notifier lists with fairly
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
>
>
> To sum up, couple of options come to mind.
>
> - Register all the RAS tools on die notifier and panic
> notifier lists with fairly high priority. Export list
> of RAS tools to user space and allow users
Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
To sum up, couple of options come to mind.
- Register all the RAS tools on die notifier and panic
notifier lists with fairly high priority. Export list
of RAS tools to user space and allow users to
* Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-08-14 10:34]:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
To sum up, couple of options come to mind.
- Register all the RAS tools on die notifier and panic
notifier lists with fairly high priority.
Bernhard Walle wrote:
* Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-08-14 10:34]:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
To sum up, couple of options come to mind.
- Register all the RAS tools on die notifier and panic
notifier lists with fairly high
* Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-08-14 10:48]:
Bernhard Walle wrote:
* Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-08-14 10:34]:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
To sum up, couple of options come to mind.
- Register all the RAS
On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 10:37:10AM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
* Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-08-14 10:34]:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
To sum up, couple of options come to mind.
- Register all the RAS tools on
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
[..]
> >Some thoughts on possible solutions for this problem.
> >
> >- Stop exporting panic_notifier_list list to modules. Audit the in kernel
> > users of panic_notifier_list. Let crash_kexec() run once all other users
> > of
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:47PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
[..]
Some thoughts on possible solutions for this problem.
- Stop exporting panic_notifier_list list to modules. Audit the in kernel
users of panic_notifier_list. Let crash_kexec() run once all other users
of
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:34:04 +1000 Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton (on Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:25:02 -0700) wrote:
> >On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:05:47 +1000 Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Switching to [EMAIL PROTECTED], I just resigned from SGI.
>
> >> I have pretty
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Much of the onus is upon the various RAS tool developers to demonstrate why it
> is unsuitable for their use and, hopefully, to explain how it can be fixed for
> them.
My current take on the situation.
There are 4 different cases we care about.
-
Andrew Morton (on Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:25:02 -0700) wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:05:47 +1000 Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Switching to [EMAIL PROTECTED], I just resigned from SGI.
>> I have pretty well given up on RAS code in the Linux kernel. Everybody
>> has different ideas, there
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:05:47 +1000 Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have pretty well given up on RAS code in the Linux kernel. Everybody
> has different ideas, there is no overall plan and little interest from
> Linus in getting RAS tools into the kernel. We are just thrashing.
Lots
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:05:47 +1000 Keith Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have pretty well given up on RAS code in the Linux kernel. Everybody
has different ideas, there is no overall plan and little interest from
Linus in getting RAS tools into the kernel. We are just thrashing.
Lots of
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Much of the onus is upon the various RAS tool developers to demonstrate why it
is unsuitable for their use and, hopefully, to explain how it can be fixed for
them.
My current take on the situation.
There are 4 different cases we care about.
- Trivial
Andrew Morton (on Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:25:02 -0700) wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:05:47 +1000 Keith Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Switching to [EMAIL PROTECTED], I just resigned from SGI.
I have pretty well given up on RAS code in the Linux kernel. Everybody
has different ideas, there is no
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:34:04 +1000 Keith Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton (on Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:25:02 -0700) wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:05:47 +1000 Keith Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Switching to [EMAIL PROTECTED], I just resigned from SGI.
I have pretty well given up
Vivek Goyal (on Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:58:52 +0530) wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:00:48AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> No. The problem with your patch is that it doesn't have a code
>> >> impact. We need to see who is using this and
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:00:48AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> No. The problem with your patch is that it doesn't have a code
> >> impact. We need to see who is using this and why.
> >
> > My motivation is very simple. I want to use both
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Then I gave up to merge my patch to kdb, and I tried to send another patch to
>> kexec community. I can understand his opinion, but it is very difficult to
>> modify that kdump is called from panic_notifier. Because it has a
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then I gave up to merge my patch to kdb, and I tried to send another patch to
kexec community. I can understand his opinion, but it is very difficult to
modify that kdump is called from panic_notifier. Because it has a reason
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:00:48AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. The problem with your patch is that it doesn't have a code
impact. We need to see who is using this and why.
My motivation is very simple. I want to use both kdb and kdump,
Vivek Goyal (on Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:58:52 +0530) wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:00:48AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. The problem with your patch is that it doesn't have a code
impact. We need to see who is using this and why.
My
Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No. The problem with your patch is that it doesn't have a code
>> impact. We need to see who is using this and why.
>
> My motivation is very simple. I want to use both kdb and kdump, but I think it
> is too weak to satisfy kexec guys. Then I
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> IMHO, most users don't use kdump, kdump users are only kernel developers and
>> enterprise users.
>
> Not at all. So far the only kdump related bug report I have seen has
> been from fedora Core.
Sorry, I
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi all,
IMHO, most users don't use kdump, kdump users are only kernel developers and
enterprise users.
Not at all. So far the only kdump related bug report I have seen has
been from fedora Core.
Sorry, I thought general
Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. The problem with your patch is that it doesn't have a code
impact. We need to see who is using this and why.
My motivation is very simple. I want to use both kdb and kdump, but I think it
is too weak to satisfy kexec guys. Then I brought up the
Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi all,
>
> IMHO, most users don't use kdump, kdump users are only kernel developers and
> enterprise users.
Not at all. So far the only kdump related bug report I have seen has
been from fedora Core.
> think enterprise users want the notifier
Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi all,
IMHO, most users don't use kdump, kdump users are only kernel developers and
enterprise users.
Not at all. So far the only kdump related bug report I have seen has
been from fedora Core.
think enterprise users want the notifier function,
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> Bernhard's idea (kdump uses panic_notifier) is very good for me. But it
>>> isn't
>>> good for kdump user, because they want to take a dump ASAP when panicked.
>>>
>> This one is better than registering kdump as one of the
Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Bernhard's idea (kdump uses panic_notifier) is very good for me. But it isn't
>> good for kdump user, because they want to take a dump ASAP when panicked.
>>
>
> This one is better than registering kdump as one of the users of a
> panic_notifier() list.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 08:28:48AM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> Hi Vivek,
>
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:47:18PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> >> * Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:44]:
> Of course, but that's why the patch doesn't change this by
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 08:28:48AM +0900, Takenori Nagano wrote:
Hi Vivek,
Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:47:18PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
* Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-26 17:44]:
Of course, but that's why the patch doesn't change this by default but
gives
Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bernhard's idea (kdump uses panic_notifier) is very good for me. But it isn't
good for kdump user, because they want to take a dump ASAP when panicked.
This one is better than registering kdump as one of the users of a
panic_notifier() list.
I think
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bernhard's idea (kdump uses panic_notifier) is very good for me. But it
isn't
good for kdump user, because they want to take a dump ASAP when panicked.
This one is better than registering kdump as one of the users of a
Hi Vivek,
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:47:18PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
>> * Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:44]:
Of course, but that's why the patch doesn't change this by default but
gives the user the choice.
>>> What value will distro set
* Bernhard Walle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 18:14]:
> * Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:54]:
> >
> > That's true. Its not mainline. We had similar discussion in the past
> > also. I think we should allow only audited code to be run after panic().
> > Leaving it open to modules
* Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:54]:
>
> That's true. Its not mainline. We had similar discussion in the past
> also. I think we should allow only audited code to be run after panic().
> Leaving it open to modules or unaudited code makes this solution
> something like LKCD where
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:47:18PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> * Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:44]:
> > >
> > > Of course, but that's why the patch doesn't change this by default but
> > > gives the user the choice.
> > >
> >
> > What value will distro set it to by default?
* Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:44]:
> >
> > Of course, but that's why the patch doesn't change this by default but
> > gives the user the choice.
> >
>
> What value will distro set it to by default?
0.
> Can we be more specific in terms of functionality and code that exactly
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:34:40PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> * Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:32]:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:07:02PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> > > * Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-19 14:15]:
> > > >
> > > > In latest kernel, we can't
* Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-26 17:32]:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:07:02PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> > * Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-19 14:15]:
> > >
> > > In latest kernel, we can't use panic_notifier_list if kdump is enabled.
> > > panic_notifier_list is
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:07:02PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> * Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-19 14:15]:
> >
> > In latest kernel, we can't use panic_notifier_list if kdump is enabled.
> > panic_notifier_list is very useful function for debug, failover, etc...
> >
> > So this
* Takenori Nagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-19 14:15]:
>
> In latest kernel, we can't use panic_notifier_list if kdump is enabled.
> panic_notifier_list is very useful function for debug, failover, etc...
>
> So this patch adds a control file /proc/sys/kernel/dump_after_notifier
> and
* Bernhard Walle [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-26 18:14]:
* Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-26 17:54]:
That's true. Its not mainline. We had similar discussion in the past
also. I think we should allow only audited code to be run after panic().
Leaving it open to modules or unaudited
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:47:18PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
* Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-26 17:44]:
Of course, but that's why the patch doesn't change this by default but
gives the user the choice.
What value will distro set it to by default?
0.
Can we be
* Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-26 17:32]:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:07:02PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
* Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-19 14:15]:
In latest kernel, we can't use panic_notifier_list if kdump is enabled.
panic_notifier_list is very useful
* Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-19 14:15]:
In latest kernel, we can't use panic_notifier_list if kdump is enabled.
panic_notifier_list is very useful function for debug, failover, etc...
So this patch adds a control file /proc/sys/kernel/dump_after_notifier
and resolves a
Hi Vivek,
Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:47:18PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
* Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-26 17:44]:
Of course, but that's why the patch doesn't change this by default but
gives the user the choice.
What value will distro set it to by default?
0.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:34:40PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
* Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-26 17:32]:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:07:02PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
* Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-19 14:15]:
In latest kernel, we can't use
* Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-26 17:54]:
That's true. Its not mainline. We had similar discussion in the past
also. I think we should allow only audited code to be run after panic().
Leaving it open to modules or unaudited code makes this solution
something like LKCD where whole
* Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-26 17:44]:
Of course, but that's why the patch doesn't change this by default but
gives the user the choice.
What value will distro set it to by default?
0.
Can we be more specific in terms of functionality and code that exactly
what we are
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:07:02PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
* Takenori Nagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-19 14:15]:
In latest kernel, we can't use panic_notifier_list if kdump is enabled.
panic_notifier_list is very useful function for debug, failover, etc...
So this patch adds a
Hi,
In latest kernel, we can't use panic_notifier_list if kdump is enabled.
panic_notifier_list is very useful function for debug, failover, etc...
So this patch adds a control file /proc/sys/kernel/dump_after_notifier
and resolves a problem users can not use both kdump and panic_notifier_list
Hi,
In latest kernel, we can't use panic_notifier_list if kdump is enabled.
panic_notifier_list is very useful function for debug, failover, etc...
So this patch adds a control file /proc/sys/kernel/dump_after_notifier
and resolves a problem users can not use both kdump and panic_notifier_list
76 matches
Mail list logo
