From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D17C433E2 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:49:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E63F21707 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:49:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="JGwYkKAG" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729095AbgIGLtB (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2020 07:49:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46294 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729059AbgIGLqf (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2020 07:46:35 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:10b:1231::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC171C061573 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 04:46:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=6Meo6VP3IoqacG95rPph6TDsxA/MRSELmhoUGpi7TNA=; b=JGwYkKAGN4NSZcP+XEryM4KmDX IrlEnLSS1+CZgqgZLfmBFySPL5yzkU3ykYwyGFstAn7eRGBJwWI8oubTSdYwBUn1hHxjmI+lkN5C7 ET4RXOCcynRA5Dz3Z24iCW1vNaxCLSJfCpr6c+QUeDNbqBxBpyjACYdF3Pb4B9e1EMYisfC9o76h/ a3XZxfa0pI8tkS4D4228dR7OSWb8on5QTAWV6YpLKDaRXI9GU7IXcifSBAgFhlIW++xv6lFg/WvM6 bXSL3a0N/ZhZO/Jcsl1NLKgOJrcRH7q3wRfdv69HW7CzhFUCZb8pewqt4TsVaSogNlLUsJfTAjf5L CcRMZNdA==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kFFbJ-0002NU-3H; Mon, 07 Sep 2020 11:46:21 +0000 Received: from hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net [192.168.1.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1523D300130; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:46:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EA024201057EE; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:46:18 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:46:18 +0200 From: peterz@infradead.org To: Joerg Vehlow Cc: Steven Rostedt , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Huang Ying , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joerg Vehlow Subject: Re: [BUG RT] dump-capture kernel not executed for panic in interrupt context Message-ID: <20200907114618.GR2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <2c243f59-6d10-7abb-bab4-e7b1796cd54f@jv-coder.de> <20200528084614.0c949e8d@gandalf.local.home> <20200727163655.8c94c8e245637b62311f5053@linux-foundation.org> <20200821110848.6c3183d1@oasis.local.home> <20200821134753.9547695c9b782275be3c95b5@linux-foundation.org> <20200821170334.73b52fdd@oasis.local.home> <95d7a489-a295-1c11-ac62-83e941ed3a87@jv-coder.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <95d7a489-a295-1c11-ac62-83e941ed3a87@jv-coder.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:51:37PM +0200, Joerg Vehlow wrote: > Hi, > > I guess there is currently no other way than to use something like Steven > proposed. I implemented and tested the attached patch with a module, > that triggers the soft lockup detection and it works as expected. > I did not use inline functions, but normal function implemented in > kexec_core, > because there is nothing time critical here. > I also added the mutex_lock to the trylock variant, because then the unlock > function can be the same for both lock functions. > > What do you think? I think it's too complicated for that is needed, did you see my suggestion from a year ago? Did i miss something obvious?