lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] irqchip: GIC kexec/kdump improvement and workarounds
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 06:35:07PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 13/03/18 17:51, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 05:21:00PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > >> As kexec and kdump are getting used a bit more intensively, I've been
> > >> made aware of a number of shortcomings.
> > >>
> > >> The main gripe is from folks trying to launch a kdump kernel from
> > >> within an interrupt handler. If using EOImode==1, things work as
> > >> expected. If using EOImode==0 (such as in a guest), the secondary
> > >> kernel hangs as the previous interrupt hasn't been EOI'd, and the
> > >> active priority is still set. The first two patches are addressing
> > >> this situation for both GICv2 and GICv3 by reseting the APRs to their
> > >> default value.
> > >
> > > As a more general thing, if irqchip drivers have state that needs to be
> > > reset in their init code, can we live all this irqchip reset to the
> > > crashdump kernel, and kill machine_kexec_mask_interrupts() entirely?
> >
> > We could, once we know for sure that all the potential irqchips have
> > been fixed. Or we could just remove it immediately, and see what breaks.
>
> I would be very tempted to do the latter.

Makes sense. Do we have any indicator that tells us that a particular irq
chip is missing something in the init code or do we have to rely on crash
reports?

Thanks,

tglx

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-14 18:12    [W:0.046 / U:1.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site