lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [BUG RT] dump-capture kernel not executed for panic in interrupt context
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:47:53 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 11:08:48 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 12:25:33 +0200
> > Joerg Vehlow <lkml@jv-coder.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Andrew and Others (please read at least the part with @RT developers),
> > >
> > > > Yup, mutex_trylock() from interrupt is improper. Well dang, that's a
> > > > bit silly. Presumably the 2006 spin_lock_mutex() wasn't taken with
> > > > irqs-off.
> > > >
> > > > Ho hum, did you look at switching the kexec code back to the xchg
> > > > approach?
> > > >
> > > I looked into reverting to the xchg approach, but that seems to be
> > > not a good solution anymore, because the mutex is used in many places,
> > > a lot with waiting locks and I guess that would require spinning now,
> > > if we do this with bare xchg.
> > >
> > > Instead I thought about using a spinlock, because they are supposed
> > > to be used in interrupt context as well, if I understand the documentation
> > > correctly ([1]).
> > > @RT developers
> > > Unfortunately the rt patches seem to interpret it a bit different and
> > > spin_trylock uses __rt_mutex_trylock again, with the same consequences as
> > > with the current code.
> > >
> > > I tried raw_spinlocks, but it looks like they result in a deadlock at
> > > least in the rt kernel. Thiy may be because of memory allocations in the
> > > critical sections, that are not allowed if I understand it correctly.
> > >
> > > I have no clue how to fix it at this point.
> > >
> > > Jörg
> > >
> > > [1] https://kernel.readthedocs.io/en/sphinx-samples/kernel-locking.html
> >
> > There's only two places that wait on the mutex, and all other places
> > try to get it, and if it fails, it simply exits.
> >
> > What I would do is introduce a kexec_busy counter, and have something
> > like this:
> >
> > For the two locations that actually wait on the mutex:
> >
> > loop:
> > mutex_lock(&kexec_mutex);
> > ret = atomic_inc_return(&kexec_busy);
> > if (ret > 1) {
> > /* Atomic context is busy on this counter, spin */
> > atomic_dec(&kexec_busy);
> > mutex_unlock(&kexec_mutex);
> > goto loop;
> > }
> > [..]
> > atomic_dec(&kexec_busy);
> > mutex_unlock(&kexec_mutex);
> >
> > And then all the other places that do the trylock:
> >
> > cant_sleep();
> > ret = atomic_inc_return(&kexec_busy);
> > if (ret > 1) {
> > atomic_dec(&kexec_busy);
> > return;
> > }
> > [..]
> > atomic_dec(&kexec_busy);
>
> Aw gee. Hide all this in include/linux/rostedt_lock.h...

Heh, if this was the way to go, I would have definitely recommended
packaging that up in static inline functions in some local header. Not
necessarily rostedt_lock.h, but I'll use that if people let me :-)

>
> Sigh. Is it too hard to make mutex_trylock() usable from interrupt
> context?


That's a question for Thomas and Peter Z.

-- Steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-21 23:04    [W:0.139 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site