On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:29:21AM +, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote:
> I was arguing about the case of oops_end --> crash_kexec
> --> return from crash_kexec because of !kexec_crash_image -->
> panic.
Aha.
> In the case of panic --> __crash_kexec, __crash_kexec is called
> only once, so we don'
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 02:01:38AM +, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:57:38AM +, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote:
> > > > We can do so, but I think resetting panic_cpu always would be
> > > > simpler and safer.
> >
> > I'll state in detail.
> >
> > When we call c
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 02:01:38AM +, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:57:38AM +, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote:
> > > We can do so, but I think resetting panic_cpu always would be
> > > simpler and safer.
>
> I'll state in detail.
>
> When we call crash_kexec() w
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:57:38AM +, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote:
> > We can do so, but I think resetting panic_cpu always would be
> > simpler and safer.
I'll state in detail.
When we call crash_kexec() without entering panic() and return from
it, panic() should be called eventually. But
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:57:38AM +, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote:
> We can do so, but I think resetting panic_cpu always would be
> simpler and safer.
Well, I think executing code needlessly *especially* at panic time is
not all that rosy either.
Besides something like this:
static
Hello Borislav,
Sorry, I haven't replied to this mail yet.
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 06:36:48PM +0900, Hidehiro Kawai wrote:
...
> > +void crash_kexec(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > + int old_cpu, this_cpu;
> > +
> > + /*
> > +* Only one CPU is allowed to execute the crash_kexec() code
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 06:36:48PM +0900, Hidehiro Kawai wrote:
> Currently, panic() and crash_kexec() can be called at the same time.
> For example (x86 case):
>
> CPU 0:
> oops_end()
> crash_kexec()
> mutex_trylock() // acquired
> nmi_shootdown_cpus() // stop other cpus
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 06:36:48PM +0900, Hidehiro Kawai wrote:
> > Currently, panic() and crash_kexec() can be called at the same time.
> > For example (x86 case):
> >
> > CPU 0:
> > oops_end()
> > crash_kexec()
> > mutex_trylock() // acquired
> > nmi_shootdown_cpus() // stop
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 06:36:48PM +0900, Hidehiro Kawai wrote:
> Currently, panic() and crash_kexec() can be called at the same time.
> For example (x86 case):
>
> CPU 0:
> oops_end()
> crash_kexec()
> mutex_trylock() // acquired
> nmi_shootdown_cpus() // stop other cpus
>
>
On Fri 20-11-15 18:36:48, Hidehiro Kawai wrote:
> Currently, panic() and crash_kexec() can be called at the same time.
> For example (x86 case):
>
> CPU 0:
> oops_end()
> crash_kexec()
> mutex_trylock() // acquired
> nmi_shootdown_cpus() // stop other cpus
>
> CPU 1:
> panic
10 matches
Mail list logo
