From: HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com> To: ebiederm@xmission.com Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vgoyal@redhat.com, kumagai-atsushi@mxc.nes.nec.co.jp Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] kdump: Enter 2nd kernel with BSP for enabling multiple CPUs Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:40:30 +0900 (JST) [thread overview] Message-ID: <20120416.154030.310066043.d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <beaa8ade-b7af-4e71-b4e0-a418ceb83f1e@email.android.com> From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] kdump: Enter 2nd kernel with BSP for enabling multiple CPUs Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:59:52 -0700 > HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >>Currently, booting up 2nd kernel with multiple CPUs fails in most >>cases since it enters 2nd kernel with AP if the crash happens on the >>AP. The problem is to signal startup IPI from AP to BSP. > > If so, then we need to fix our code that sends startupIPIs. > And perhaps the code that attempts to shutdown the other cpus. > Now maxcpus=1 is set at default, in which configuration, 2nd kernel doesn't try to wake up secondary and later CPUs. So there's no startup IPI on the 2nd kernel now. > It is not ok to switch cpus during kdump (reducing the reliability) just so you can write crash dumps faster. Better would be to cope with secondary cpus not booting. Even the current implememntation uses NMI to stop other CPUs. The reliability you are concerned about here is the possibility where the non-crashing BSP doesn't go into machine_kexec() due to some failures of interrupt processing, right? Alternative idea is: 1) try to go into 2nd kernel with BSP, 2) after some seconds, then try to go into 2nd kernel with crashing CPU. Then, think of CPUs except for the crashing cpu as abnormal, and use crashing cpu only on the 2nd kernel. This seems as reliable as the current one. > > I do like the direction of pounding on things so we can get multiple cpus going in large configurations. Although I am surprised you are cpu bound and not disk bound in the time to write your crash dumps. > What do you indicate in the 1st sentence? I don't understand around ``pounding on thing'', sorry. For the 2nd, it depends on data. If data is sparse enough, the data size is significantly reduced, and so IO size is also reduced. If data is randomized enough, compression takes much time and the data remains the same size, resulting in cpu bound processing. Thanks. HATAYAMA, Daisuke
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com> To: ebiederm@xmission.com Cc: kumagai-atsushi@mxc.nes.nec.co.jp, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vgoyal@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] kdump: Enter 2nd kernel with BSP for enabling multiple CPUs Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:40:30 +0900 (JST) [thread overview] Message-ID: <20120416.154030.310066043.d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <beaa8ade-b7af-4e71-b4e0-a418ceb83f1e@email.android.com> From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] kdump: Enter 2nd kernel with BSP for enabling multiple CPUs Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:59:52 -0700 > HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >>Currently, booting up 2nd kernel with multiple CPUs fails in most >>cases since it enters 2nd kernel with AP if the crash happens on the >>AP. The problem is to signal startup IPI from AP to BSP. > > If so, then we need to fix our code that sends startupIPIs. > And perhaps the code that attempts to shutdown the other cpus. > Now maxcpus=1 is set at default, in which configuration, 2nd kernel doesn't try to wake up secondary and later CPUs. So there's no startup IPI on the 2nd kernel now. > It is not ok to switch cpus during kdump (reducing the reliability) just so you can write crash dumps faster. Better would be to cope with secondary cpus not booting. Even the current implememntation uses NMI to stop other CPUs. The reliability you are concerned about here is the possibility where the non-crashing BSP doesn't go into machine_kexec() due to some failures of interrupt processing, right? Alternative idea is: 1) try to go into 2nd kernel with BSP, 2) after some seconds, then try to go into 2nd kernel with crashing CPU. Then, think of CPUs except for the crashing cpu as abnormal, and use crashing cpu only on the 2nd kernel. This seems as reliable as the current one. > > I do like the direction of pounding on things so we can get multiple cpus going in large configurations. Although I am surprised you are cpu bound and not disk bound in the time to write your crash dumps. > What do you indicate in the 1st sentence? I don't understand around ``pounding on thing'', sorry. For the 2nd, it depends on data. If data is sparse enough, the data size is significantly reduced, and so IO size is also reduced. If data is randomized enough, compression takes much time and the data remains the same size, resulting in cpu bound processing. Thanks. HATAYAMA, Daisuke _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-16 6:40 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-04-16 2:21 [PATCH 0/2] kdump: Enter 2nd kernel with BSP for enabling multiple CPUs HATAYAMA Daisuke 2012-04-16 2:21 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke 2012-04-16 2:21 ` [PATCH 1/2] Introduce crash ipi helpers to wait for APs to stop HATAYAMA Daisuke 2012-04-16 2:21 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke 2012-04-16 2:21 ` [PATCH 2/2] Enter 2nd kernel with BSP HATAYAMA Daisuke 2012-04-16 2:21 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke 2012-04-23 10:46 ` Andi Kleen 2012-04-23 10:49 ` Andi Kleen 2012-04-24 2:05 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke 2012-04-24 3:04 ` Yu, Fenghua 2012-04-24 8:04 ` Andi Kleen 2012-04-24 10:46 ` Eric W. Biederman [not found] ` <beaa8ade-b7af-4e71-b4e0-a418ceb83f1e@email.android.com> 2012-04-16 6:40 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke [this message] 2012-04-16 6:40 ` [PATCH 0/2] kdump: Enter 2nd kernel with BSP for enabling multiple CPUs HATAYAMA Daisuke 2012-05-14 8:29 ` Cong Wang 2013-04-18 11:41 ` Petr Tesarik 2013-04-18 11:41 ` Petr Tesarik 2013-04-19 8:45 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke 2013-04-19 8:45 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20120416.154030.310066043.d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com \ --to=d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com \ --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \ --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=kumagai-atsushi@mxc.nes.nec.co.jp \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.