[PATCH v8] kernel, add panic_on_warn
Prarit Bhargava
prarit at redhat.com
Thu Nov 6 14:51:01 PST 2014
On 11/06/2014 04:57 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/kdump/kdump.txt b/Documentation/kdump/kdump.txt
>>>> index 6c0b9f2..bc4bd5a 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/kdump/kdump.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/kdump/kdump.txt
>>>> @@ -471,6 +471,13 @@ format. Crash is available on Dave Anderson's site at the following URL:
>>>>
>>>> http://people.redhat.com/~anderson/
>>>>
>>>> +Trigger Kdump on WARN()
>>>> +=======================
>>>> +
>>>> +The kernel parameter, panic_on_warn, calls panic() in all WARN() paths. This
>>>> +will cause a kdump to occur at the panic() call. In cases where a user wants
>>>> +to specify this during runtime, /proc/sys/kernel/panic_on_warn can be set to 1
>>>> +to achieve the same behaviour.
>>>>
>>>> Contact
>>>> =======
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
>>>> index 4c81a86..ea5d57c 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
>>>> @@ -2509,6 +2509,9 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
>>>> timeout < 0: reboot immediately
>>>> Format: <timeout>
>>>>
>>>> + panic_on_warn panic() instead of WARN(). Useful to cause kdump
>>>> + on a WARN().
>>>> +
>>>> crash_kexec_post_notifiers
>>>> Run kdump after running panic-notifiers and dumping
>>>> kmsg. This only for the users who doubt kdump always
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt b/Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt
>>>> index 57baff5..b5d0c85 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt
>>>> @@ -54,8 +54,9 @@ show up in /proc/sys/kernel:
>>>> - overflowuid
>>>> - panic
>>>> - panic_on_oops
>>>> -- panic_on_unrecovered_nmi
>>>> - panic_on_stackoverflow
>>>> +- panic_on_unrecovered_nmi
>>>> +- panic_on_warn
>>>> - pid_max
>>>> - powersave-nap [ PPC only ]
>>>> - printk
>>>> @@ -527,19 +528,6 @@ the recommended setting is 60.
>>>>
>>>> ==============================================================
>>>>
>>>> -panic_on_unrecovered_nmi:
>>>> -
>>>> -The default Linux behaviour on an NMI of either memory or unknown is
>>>> -to continue operation. For many environments such as scientific
>>>> -computing it is preferable that the box is taken out and the error
>>>> -dealt with than an uncorrected parity/ECC error get propagated.
>>>> -
>>>> -A small number of systems do generate NMI's for bizarre random reasons
>>>> -such as power management so the default is off. That sysctl works like
>>>> -the existing panic controls already in that directory.
>>>> -
>>>> -==============================================================
>>>> -
>>>> panic_on_oops:
>>>>
>>>> Controls the kernel's behaviour when an oops or BUG is encountered.
>>>> @@ -563,6 +551,30 @@ This file shows up if CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW is enabled.
>>>>
>>>> ==============================================================
>>>>
>>>> +panic_on_unrecovered_nmi:
>>>> +
>>>> +The default Linux behaviour on an NMI of either memory or unknown is
>>>> +to continue operation. For many environments such as scientific
>>>> +computing it is preferable that the box is taken out and the error
>>>> +dealt with than an uncorrected parity/ECC error get propagated.
>>>> +
>>>> +A small number of systems do generate NMI's for bizarre random reasons
>>>> +such as power management so the default is off. That sysctl works like
>>>> +the existing panic controls already in that directory.
>>>> +
>>>> +==============================================================
>>>> +
>>>> +panic_on_warn:
>>>> +
>>>> +Calls panic() in the WARN() path when set to 1. This is useful to avoid
>>>> +a kernel rebuild when attempting to kdump at the location of a WARN().
>>>> +
>>>> +0: only WARN(), default behaviour.
>>>> +
>>>> +1: call panic() after printing out WARN() location.
>>>> +
>>>> +==============================================================
>>>> +
>>>> perf_cpu_time_max_percent:
>>>>
>>>> Hints to the kernel how much CPU time it should be allowed to
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
>>>> index 3d770f55..d60d31d 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/kernel.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
>>>> @@ -422,6 +422,7 @@ extern int panic_timeout;
>>>> extern int panic_on_oops;
>>>> extern int panic_on_unrecovered_nmi;
>>>> extern int panic_on_io_nmi;
>>>> +extern int panic_on_warn;
>>>> extern int sysctl_panic_on_stackoverflow;
>>>> /*
>>>> * Only to be used by arch init code. If the user over-wrote the default
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/sysctl.h b/include/uapi/linux/sysctl.h
>>>> index 43aaba1..0956373 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/sysctl.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/sysctl.h
>>>> @@ -153,6 +153,7 @@ enum
>>>> KERN_MAX_LOCK_DEPTH=74, /* int: rtmutex's maximum lock depth */
>>>> KERN_NMI_WATCHDOG=75, /* int: enable/disable nmi watchdog */
>>>> KERN_PANIC_ON_NMI=76, /* int: whether we will panic on an unrecovered */
>>>> + KERN_PANIC_ON_WARN=77, /* int: call panic() in WARN() functions */
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/panic.c b/kernel/panic.c
>>>> index d09dc5c..c6a7723 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/panic.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/panic.c
>>>> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ static int pause_on_oops;
>>>> static int pause_on_oops_flag;
>>>> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(pause_on_oops_lock);
>>>> static bool crash_kexec_post_notifiers;
>>>> +int panic_on_warn __read_mostly;
>>>>
>>>> int panic_timeout = CONFIG_PANIC_TIMEOUT;
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(panic_timeout);
>>>> @@ -420,13 +421,23 @@ static void warn_slowpath_common(const char *file, int line, void *caller,
>>>> {
>>>> disable_trace_on_warning();
>>>>
>>>> - pr_warn("------------[ cut here ]------------\n");
>>>> + if (!panic_on_warn)
>>>> + pr_warn("------------[ cut here ]------------\n");
>>>
>>> Is this really necessary?
>>
>> Yes IMO. The WARN() prints out the line and it looks "weird" when we're doing a
>> panic because the finishing "end" doesn't print out. I'm specifically
>> targetting this kernel option at end users and I think the way it looks matters.
>>
>
> I disagree, I think it gives bug reporters guidance on what needs to be
> reported and what doesn't need to be reported. The trailing "end" isn't
> needed if the system is going to panic.
True ... I'm not really here-or-there on it. I can put it back.
>
>>>
>>>> pr_warn("WARNING: CPU: %d PID: %d at %s:%d %pS()\n",
>>>> raw_smp_processor_id(), current->pid, file, line, caller);
>>>>
>>>> if (args)
>>>> vprintk(args->fmt, args->args);
>>>>
>>>> + if (panic_on_warn) {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * A flood of WARN()s may occur. Prevent further WARN()s
>>>> + * from panicking the system.
>>>> + */
>>>
>>> What synchronization is preventing this race and further WARN()s panicking
>>> the system?
>>
>> Now that I re-read it, the flood comment is definitely misleading.
>> It should read "The panic path may lead to additional WARN()s. Prevent
>> additional WARN()s from panicking the system." I'll change that in the next
>> version.
>>
>> Your question spurred me to write a simple module that did this on a 160-core
>> system:
>>
>> static void warn_this_cpu(void *arg)
>> {
>> WARN(1, "cpu = %d\n", smp_processor_id());
>> }
>>
>> static int init_dummy(void)
>> {
>> on_each_cpu(warn_this_cpu, NULL, 1);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> to see if I could hit any races in this code. While the WARN()s output overlap
>> each other I always see a single:
>>
>
> You see that doing
>
> if (panic_on_warn) {
> panic_on_warn = 0;
> panic(...);
> }
>
> is racy, I hope.
Yes and no. Yes, I agree that panic_no_warn setting & panic() could race
leading to multiple threads hitting the function panic(), but (see below)
>If two threads WARN() at the same time, then there's
> nothing preventing a double panic() because WARN() itself is not
> serialized against anything. So both the current comment and your
> suggested revision comment are bogus.
panic(), after disabling local interrupts does spin_trylock(&panic_lock) so
your multiple thread panic cannot occur. The stack trace on the other threads
will still be intact (this is no different from other situations where
multiple threads have panicked). So no, I don't see the situation you describe
where multiple threads hitting that panic() can cause a problem here.
>
>> Another issue: Are multiple WARN()s supposed to overlap output like that? Do we
>> want them to? AFAICT there is no way to distinguish the output from one WARN()
>> from another ...
>>
>
> Usually one thread is encountering a path that spurs many WARN()s to
> trigger so they don't interleave in the kernel log, your test case is
> causing warnings on different cpus, some simultaneously. To prevent the
> interleaving of the stacks, it would need the same serialization that
> doing
>
> if (panic_on_warn) {
> panic_on_warn = 0;
> panic(...);
> }
>
spin_lock(&warn_lock) or something around the whole thing. In any case it is a
really contrived situation so I'm not worried about it [unless someone has seen
it in a real world scenario].
P.
> needs.
>
More information about the kexec
mailing list