mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Akiyama, Nobuyuki" <akiyama.nobuyuk@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: fastboot@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Fastboot] [PATCH] kdump: add a missing notifier before crashing
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 06:47:04 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <m1y7vtia7r.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060619163053.f0f10a5e.akiyama.nobuyuk@jp.fujitsu.com> (Nobuyuki Akiyama's message of "Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:30:53 +0900")

"Akiyama, Nobuyuki" <akiyama.nobuyuk@jp.fujitsu.com> writes:

> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:37:05 -0600
> ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>
>> > The processing of the notifier is to make a SCSI adaptor power off to
>> > stop writing in the shared disk completely and then notify to standby-node.
>> 
>> The kernel has called panic no new SCSI operations were execute.
>> I'm not saying don't notify your standby-node
>
> As you say, the kernel does not do anything about SCSI operations.
> But many SCSI adaptors flush their cache after a few seconds pass
> after a SCSI write command is invoked, especially RAID cards.
> To completely stop writing immediately, we should make the adaptor
> power off.

Yes.  Although I don't have a clue what big scsi has to do with a
telco systems.

>> Please walk me through a real world kernel failure, and show me how
>> your millisecond requirement is met.
>> 
>> In the example please answer:
>> - What causes the kernel to call panic?
>> - From the real failure to the kernel calling panic how long
>>   does it take?
>
> For instance, if a file system inconsistency is detected,
> it takes few time until invoking panic.

What is a few time?

> I have seen various kernel failure so far and these will
> unfortunately occur.

Yes kernel failures will occur, people and hardware are imperfect.
But the should be quite rare, on the telco gear you were talking
about.

>> - What actions does the notifier take to tell the other kernel
>>   it is dead.
>
> The operation is only writing to BMC a few times to use IPMI
> interface. That operation using outb is very simple.

Ok.  A simple outb to the BMC through the IPMI interface.

>> - Why do we think the kernel taking that action will be reliable?
>
> I agree the notifier may spoil reliability as compared with doing
> nothing. It depends on quality of the notifier processing.
> But I think the one is needed because it is more effective.

It depends very much on what you are doing.  We have C code that
runs before the dump kernel is started.  It would be absolutely
trivial to modify that C code to tell the IPMI controller that
something has happened.  That operation can happen then after
it has checked a checksum of itself.  

>> - From the point where we call panic() how long does it take until
>>   the kdump kernel is active?
>
> On my box it takes about one second or so, but on a actual enterprise
> system which have many disks(hundreds or more) it becomes more.

Certainly.  But a system with hundreds of disks isn't the system
with a millisecond response time limit.  In general you don't need
to initialize all of your disks just to take a crash dump so even
without optimizing the kernel the kernel things are slow.

Eric

  reply	other threads:[~2006-06-19 12:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-06-15 11:16 Akiyama, Nobuyuki
2006-06-16  6:28 ` [Fastboot] " Eric W. Biederman
2006-06-16 12:15   ` Akiyama, Nobuyuki
2006-06-16 16:37     ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-06-19  7:30       ` Akiyama, Nobuyuki
2006-06-19 12:47         ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2006-06-19 13:28           ` Preben Traerup
2006-06-19 16:49             ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-06-19 17:07               ` Vivek Goyal
2006-06-19 17:50                 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-06-19 18:19                   ` Vivek Goyal
2006-06-19 18:45                     ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-06-20  3:46                   ` Akiyama, Nobuyuki
2006-06-20  3:39             ` Akiyama, Nobuyuki
2006-07-04 12:33 Akiyama, Nobuyuki
2006-07-05 16:14 ` [Fastboot] " Eric W. Biederman

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=m1y7vtia7r.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com \
    --to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=akiyama.nobuyuk@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=fastboot@lists.osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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: 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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®