Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1360145 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] printk/nmi: Generic solution for safe printk in NMI

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] printk/nmi: Generic solution for safe printk in  NMI Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-03-17 20:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] printk/nmi: Generic solution for safe printk in  NMI Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> - 2016-03-18 11:10 +0100

#1360145 — Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] printk/nmi: Generic solution for safe printk in NMI

On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 17:57:44 +0100 Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:

> On Wed 2015-12-02 00:24:49, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2015, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > 
> > > MN10300 has its own implementation for entering and exiting NMI 
> > > handlers. It does not call nmi_enter() and nmi_exit(). Please, find 
> > > below an updated patch that adds printk_nmi_enter() and 
> > > printk_nmi_exit() to the custom entry points. Then we could add HAVE_NMI 
> > > to arch/mn10300/Kconfig and avoid the above warning.
> > 
> > Hmm, so what exactly would go wrong if MN10300 (whatever that architecture 
> > is) would call nmi_enter() and nmi_exit() at the places where it's 
> > starting and finishing NMI handler?
> > 
> > >From a cursory look, it seems like most (if not all) of the things called 
> > from nmi_{enter,exit}() would be nops there anyway.
> 
> Good point. Max mentioned in the other main that the NMI handler
> should follow the NMI ruler. I do not why it could not work.
> In fact, it might improve things, e.g. nmi_enter() blocks
> recursive NMIs.
> 
> I think that it will move it into a separate patch, thought.
> 

I've sort of lost the plot on this patchset.

I know Daniel had concerns (resolved?).  Sergey lost the ability to
perform backtraces and has a proposed fix ("printk/nmi: restore
printk_func in nmi_panic") but that wasn't fully resolved and I didn't
merge anything.  I'm not sure what Jan's thinking is on it all.

So... I'll retain 

printk-nmi-generic-solution-for-safe-printk-in-nmi.patch
printk-nmi-use-irq-work-only-when-ready.patch
printk-nmi-warn-when-some-message-has-been-lost-in-nmi-context.patch
printk-nmi-increase-the-size-of-nmi-buffer-and-make-it-configurable.patch

in -mm for now.  Perhaps I should drop them all and we start again
after -rc1?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1360484

On Thu 2016-03-17 12:35:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 17:57:44 +0100 Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed 2015-12-02 00:24:49, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2015, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > 
> > > > MN10300 has its own implementation for entering and exiting NMI 
> > > > handlers. It does not call nmi_enter() and nmi_exit(). Please, find 
> > > > below an updated patch that adds printk_nmi_enter() and 
> > > > printk_nmi_exit() to the custom entry points. Then we could add HAVE_NMI 
> > > > to arch/mn10300/Kconfig and avoid the above warning.
> > > 
> > > Hmm, so what exactly would go wrong if MN10300 (whatever that architecture 
> > > is) would call nmi_enter() and nmi_exit() at the places where it's 
> > > starting and finishing NMI handler?
> > > 
> > > >From a cursory look, it seems like most (if not all) of the things called 
> > > from nmi_{enter,exit}() would be nops there anyway.
> > 
> > Good point. Max mentioned in the other main that the NMI handler
> > should follow the NMI ruler. I do not why it could not work.
> > In fact, it might improve things, e.g. nmi_enter() blocks
> > recursive NMIs.
> > 
> > I think that it will move it into a separate patch, thought.
> > 
> 
> I've sort of lost the plot on this patchset.
> 
> I know Daniel had concerns (resolved?).  Sergey lost the ability to
> perform backtraces and has a proposed fix ("printk/nmi: restore
> printk_func in nmi_panic") but that wasn't fully resolved and I didn't
> merge anything.  I'm not sure what Jan's thinking is on it all.
> 
> So... I'll retain 
> 
> printk-nmi-generic-solution-for-safe-printk-in-nmi.patch
> printk-nmi-use-irq-work-only-when-ready.patch
> printk-nmi-warn-when-some-message-has-been-lost-in-nmi-context.patch
> printk-nmi-increase-the-size-of-nmi-buffer-and-make-it-configurable.patch
> 
> in -mm for now.  Perhaps I should drop them all and we start again
> after -rc1?

Please, drop it for now. I'll send an updated version that will better
handle Daniel's concerns after rc1.

I thought that it had already been decided. You wanted to remove the patchset
in favour of "improvements to the nmi_backtrace code" by Chris Metcalf, see
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/482845/focus=483002

Best Regards,
Petr

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web