xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: show remote CPU state upon fatal NMI
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:15:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <dd97d9c4-ea56-d3f3-79fb-f170c839bf6a@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57616D6002000078000F5537@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>

On 15/06/16 13:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 15.06.16 at 13:03, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 15/06/16 08:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> @@ -570,6 +600,15 @@ void fatal_trap(const struct cpu_user_re
>>>>>              printk("Faulting linear address: %p\n", _p(cr2));
>>>>>              show_page_walk(cr2);
>>>>>          }
>>>>> +        else if ( trapnr == TRAP_nmi )
>>>>> +        {
>>>>> +            cpumask_andnot(&nmi_show_state_mask, &cpu_online_map,
>>>>> +                           cpumask_of(smp_processor_id()));
>>>>> +            set_nmi_callback(nmi_show_execution_state);
>>>>> +            smp_send_nmi_allbutself();
>>>> This would cause far less spinlock contention as
>>>> for_each_cpu( cpu, nmi_show_state_mask )
>>>>     smp_send_nmi(cpu);
>>>> I realise this involves introducing a new smp function, but it would
>>>> substantially reduce contention on the console lock.
>>> Again, I don't see why lock contention would matter here. And then
>>> I also don't see how sending the IPIs individually would make matters
>>> significantly better: The sending will surely finish much faster than
>>> the printing.
>> Contention is a problem because you have replaced the NMI callback, and
>> the watchdog is still running.  Especially if sync_console is in effect,
>> you are liable to incur a further timeout, queueing up more NMIs.
>> Although now I think of it, that won't matter so long as the NMIs don't
>> nest.
>> The one advantage of sending the NMIs in order is that the information
>> dump will happen in order, which is slightly more use than having them
>> in a random order on a large machine.
> How that? All the NMIs will still arrive at about the same time, so
> while some low numbered CPUs may indeed get their state printed
> in order, higher numbered ones may still make it into the lock region
> in any order. (And no, building upon ticket locks making randomness
> much less likely is neither an option, nor would it really help: Just
> think of a lower numbered CPU first having to come out of a deep
> C-state or running at a much lower P-state than a higher numbered
> one.)

Hmm true.  There isn't a acknowledgement of the start of the NMI
handler, and putting one in sounds like far more effort and fragility
than it is worth.

>>>> I would recommend moving this clause into nmi_watchdog_tick(), so that
>>>> it doesn't get involved for non-watchdog NMIs.  IOCK/SERR NMIs won't
>>>> have anything interesting to print from here.  I would also recommend
>>>> disabling the watchdog before IPI'ing.
>>> And indeed I would have wanted it there, but I can't see how it can
>>> reasonably be put there: fatal_trap() doesn't return, so we can't put
>>> it after. And we definitely want to get state of the local CPU out
>>> before we try to log state of any of the remote CPUs. So the only
>>> options I see would be to
>>> - somehow specially flag the regs structure, but that feels hackish
>>>   (among other aspects nmi_watchdog_tick() has that parameter
>>>   const qualified for the very reason that it isn't supposed to fiddle
>>>   with it),
>>> - introduce a global flag.
>> How about a boolean flag to fatal_trap()?  It doesn't have many callers,
>> and this kind of printing might also be useful for some MCEs.
> Ah, right, there indeed aren't that many. Can you qualify "some"
> a bit better, so that maybe I can have the patch pass true there
> right away?

Any MCE which is in-practice synchronous might benefit.  I wouldn't
worry about updating the MCE callers as part of this.


Xen-devel mailing list

      reply	other threads:[~2016-06-15 13:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-14 14:33 [PATCH] x86: show remote CPU state upon fatal NMI Jan Beulich
2016-06-14 15:03 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-06-15  7:55   ` Jan Beulich
2016-06-15 11:03     ` Andrew Cooper
2016-06-15 12:59       ` Jan Beulich
2016-06-15 13:15         ` Andrew Cooper [this message]

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=dd97d9c4-ea56-d3f3-79fb-f170c839bf6a@citrix.com \
    --to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).