Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On 08/03/18 22:06, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > 2018-03-02 17:57 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : > Do you see this for a panic() in *any* interrupt handler? I only test with this two interrupt handlers: watchdog and i2c but I think it will behave the same with

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On 08/03/18 22:06, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > 2018-03-02 17:57 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : > Do you see this for a panic() in *any* interrupt handler? I only test with this two interrupt handlers: watchdog and i2c but I think it will behave the same with others - I can try with

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On 09/03/18 10:33, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: >> Not using EOImode==1 is definitely an oddity (at least on the host), but >> that doesn't mean it shouldn't work. >> >> The reason the thing is hanging is that although we correctly deactivate >> the interrupt, nothing performs the priority drop. Your

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On 09/03/18 10:33, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: >> Not using EOImode==1 is definitely an oddity (at least on the host), but >> that doesn't mean it shouldn't work. >> >> The reason the thing is hanging is that although we correctly deactivate >> the interrupt, nothing performs the priority drop. Your

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

> Not using EOImode==1 is definitely an oddity (at least on the host), but > that doesn't mean it shouldn't work. > > The reason the thing is hanging is that although we correctly deactivate > the interrupt, nothing performs the priority drop. Your write to EOI > helps in the sense that it

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

> Not using EOImode==1 is definitely an oddity (at least on the host), but > that doesn't mean it shouldn't work. > > The reason the thing is hanging is that although we correctly deactivate > the interrupt, nothing performs the priority drop. Your write to EOI > helps in the sense that it

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

2018-03-02 17:57 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : >> > > Do you see this for a panic() in *any* interrupt handler? >> > >> > I only test with this two interrupt handlers: watchdog and i2c but I >> > think it will behave the same with others - I can try with other if >> > you want,

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

2018-03-02 17:57 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : >> > > Do you see this for a panic() in *any* interrupt handler? >> > >> > I only test with this two interrupt handlers: watchdog and i2c but I >> > think it will behave the same with others - I can try with other if >> > you want, any suggestion which?

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On 02/03/18 11:56, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > Thank you for your feedback. I probably over-interpreted some of the > documentation paragraph to justify (probably) buggy behavior that I am > seeing. Regardless of correctness of this patch I will appreciate if > you could help understanding this

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On 02/03/18 11:56, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > Thank you for your feedback. I probably over-interpreted some of the > documentation paragraph to justify (probably) buggy behavior that I am > seeing. Regardless of correctness of this patch I will appreciate if > you could help understanding this

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 04:44:13PM +, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 02:52:07PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > > 2018-03-02 14:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : > > > Do you see this for a panic() in *any* interrupt handler? > > > > I only test with this two

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 04:44:13PM +, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 02:52:07PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > > 2018-03-02 14:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : > > > Do you see this for a panic() in *any* interrupt handler? > > > > I only test with this two interrupt handlers:

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 02:52:07PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > 2018-03-02 14:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : > > Do you see this for a panic() in *any* interrupt handler? > > I only test with this two interrupt handlers: watchdog and i2c but I > think it will behave the

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 02:52:07PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > 2018-03-02 14:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : > > Do you see this for a panic() in *any* interrupt handler? > > I only test with this two interrupt handlers: watchdog and i2c but I > think it will behave the same with others - I can

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

2018-03-02 14:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 01:59:27PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: >> 2018-03-02 13:05 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : >> > Do you have a way to reproduce the problem? >> > >> > Is there an easy way to cause the

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

2018-03-02 14:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 01:59:27PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: >> 2018-03-02 13:05 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : >> > Do you have a way to reproduce the problem? >> > >> > Is there an easy way to cause the watchdog to trigger a kdump as above, >> > e.g.

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 01:59:27PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > 2018-03-02 13:05 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : > > Do you have a way to reproduce the problem? > > > > Is there an easy way to cause the watchdog to trigger a kdump as above, > > e.g. via LKDTM? > > You can

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 01:59:27PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > 2018-03-02 13:05 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : > > Do you have a way to reproduce the problem? > > > > Is there an easy way to cause the watchdog to trigger a kdump as above, > > e.g. via LKDTM? > > You can reproduce this problem by:

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

2018-03-02 13:05 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:56:24PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: >> Thank you for your feedback. I probably over-interpreted some of the >> documentation paragraph to justify (probably) buggy behavior that I am >> seeing.

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

2018-03-02 13:05 GMT+01:00 Mark Rutland : > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:56:24PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: >> Thank you for your feedback. I probably over-interpreted some of the >> documentation paragraph to justify (probably) buggy behavior that I am >> seeing. Regardless of correctness of

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:56:24PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > Thank you for your feedback. I probably over-interpreted some of the > documentation paragraph to justify (probably) buggy behavior that I am > seeing. Regardless of correctness of this patch I will appreciate if > you could help

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:56:24PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > Thank you for your feedback. I probably over-interpreted some of the > documentation paragraph to justify (probably) buggy behavior that I am > seeing. Regardless of correctness of this patch I will appreciate if > you could help

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

Thank you for your feedback. I probably over-interpreted some of the documentation paragraph to justify (probably) buggy behavior that I am seeing. Regardless of correctness of this patch I will appreciate if you could help understanding this issue. First the whole story: I was debugging why the

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

Thank you for your feedback. I probably over-interpreted some of the documentation paragraph to justify (probably) buggy behavior that I am seeing. Regardless of correctness of this patch I will appreciate if you could help understanding this issue. First the whole story: I was debugging why the

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On 28/02/18 17:16, Mark Rutland wrote: > [Adding MarcZ] > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 06:01:00PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: >> Hitherto during machine_kexec_mask_interrupts there was an attempt to >> remove active state using irq_set_irqchip_state() routine and only if it >> failed, the

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

On 28/02/18 17:16, Mark Rutland wrote: > [Adding MarcZ] > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 06:01:00PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: >> Hitherto during machine_kexec_mask_interrupts there was an attempt to >> remove active state using irq_set_irqchip_state() routine and only if it >> failed, the

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

[Adding MarcZ] On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 06:01:00PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > Hitherto during machine_kexec_mask_interrupts there was an attempt to > remove active state using irq_set_irqchip_state() routine and only if it > failed, the attempt to EOI the interrupt was made. Nevertheless

Re: [PATCH] arm64: kdump: fix interrupt handling done during machine_crash_shutdown

[Adding MarcZ] On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 06:01:00PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > Hitherto during machine_kexec_mask_interrupts there was an attempt to > remove active state using irq_set_irqchip_state() routine and only if it > failed, the attempt to EOI the interrupt was made. Nevertheless