Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Apr 2022 13:33:04 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 4/8] crash: generic crash hotplug support infrastructure | From | Eric DeVolder <> |
| |
On 3/28/22 20:10, Baoquan He wrote: > On 03/28/22 at 11:08am, Eric DeVolder wrote: >> Baoquan, a comment below. >> eric >> >> On 3/24/22 09:37, Eric DeVolder wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 3/24/22 09:33, Baoquan He wrote: >>>> On 03/24/22 at 08:53am, Eric DeVolder wrote: >>>>> Baoquan, >>>>> Thanks, I've offered a minor correction below. >>>>> eric >>>>> >>>>> On 3/24/22 08:49, Baoquan He wrote: >>>>>> On 03/24/22 at 09:38pm, Baoquan He wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/03/22 at 11:27am, Eric DeVolder wrote: >>>>>>>> This patch introduces a generic crash hot plug/unplug infrastructure >>>>>>>> for CPU and memory changes. Upon CPU and memory changes, a generic >>>>>>>> crash_hotplug_handler() obtains the appropriate lock, does some >>>>>>>> important house keeping and then dispatches the hot plug/unplug event >>>>>>>> to the architecture specific arch_crash_hotplug_handler(), and when >>>>>>>> that handler returns, the lock is released. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This patch modifies crash_core.c to implement a subsys_initcall() >>>>>>>> function that installs handlers for hot plug/unplug events. If CPU >>>>>>>> hotplug is enabled, then cpuhp_setup_state() is invoked to register a >>>>>>>> handler for CPU changes. Similarly, if memory hotplug is enabled, then >>>>>>>> register_memory_notifier() is invoked to install a handler for memory >>>>>>>> changes. These handlers in turn invoke the common generic handler >>>>>>>> crash_hotplug_handler(). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On the CPU side, cpuhp_setup_state_nocalls() is invoked with parameter >>>>>>>> CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN. While this works, when a CPU is being unplugged, >>>>>>>> the CPU still shows up in foreach_present_cpu() during the regeneration >>>>>>>> of the new CPU list, thus the need to explicitly check and exclude the >>>>>>>> soon-to-be offlined CPU in crash_prepare_elf64_headers(). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On the memory side, each un/plugged memory block passes through the >>>>>>>> handler. For example, if a 1GiB DIMM is hotplugged, that generate 8 >>>>>>>> memory events, one for each 128MiB memblock. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I rewrite the log as below with my understanding. Hope it's simpler to >>>>>>> help people get what's going on here. Please consider to take if it's >>>>>>> OK to you or adjust based on this. The code looks good to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Made some tuning: >>>>>> >>>>>> crash: add generic infrastructure for crash hotplug support >>>>>> >>>>>> Upon CPU and memory changes, a generic crash_hotplug_handler() is added >>>>>> to dispatch the hot plug/unplug event to the architecture specific >>>>>> arch_crash_hotplug_handler(). During the process, kexec_mutex need be >>>>>> held. >>>>>> >>>>>> To support cpu hotplug, one callback pair are registered to capture >>>>>> KEXEC_CRASH_HP_ADD_CPU and KEXEC_CRASH_HP_REMOVE_CPU events via >>>>>> cpuhp_setup_state_nocalls(). >>>>> s/KEXEC_CRASH_HP_ADD}REMOVE_CPU/CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN/ as the KEXEC_CRASH are the >>>>> names I've introduced with this patch? >>>> >>>> Right.
Updated commit message.
>>>> >>>> While checking it, I notice hp_action which you don't use actually. >>>> Can you reconsider that part of design, the hp_action, the a, b >>>> parameter passed to handler? >>> >>> Sure I can remove. I initially put in there as this was generic >>> infrastructure and not sure if it would benefit others. >>> eric >>> >> >> Actually, I will keep the hp_action as the work by Sourabh Jain for PPC uses >> the hp_action. I'll drop the a and b. > > Sounds great.
Turns out hp_action and a are utilized, so I just left it alone. If you'd rather I remove b, I can do so.
> >> >> Also, shall I post v6, or are you still looking at patches 7 and 8? > > Will check today, thanks for the effort. >
| |