On 02/20/2017 at 07:09 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 02:10:37PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> @@ -1128,8 +1129,9 @@ void do_machine_check(struct pt_regs *regs, long
>> error_code)
>> */
>> int lmce = 1;
>>
>> - /* If this CPU is offline, just bail out. */
>> - if (cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id())) {
>> + /* If nmi shootdown happened or this CPU is offline, just bail out. */
>> + if (cpus_shotdown() ||
> I don't like "cpus_shotdown" - it doesn't hint at all that this is
> special-handling crash/kdump.
>
> And more importantly, I want it to be obvious that we do let the
> crashing CPU into the MCE handler.
Ok, I will export crashing_cpu and use it directly in mce handler.
>
> Why?
>
> If we didn't, you will not handle *any* MCE, even a fatal one, during
> dumping memory so if that dump is corrupted from the MCE, you won't
> know. And I don't want to be the one staring at the corrupted dump and
> wondering why I'm seeing what I'm seeing.
>
> IOW, if we get a fatal MCE during dumping then we should go and die.
> This is much better than silently corrupting the dump and not even
> saying anything about it.
>
My thought is that it doesn't matter after kdump boots as new mce handler
will be installed. If we get a fatal MCE during kdumping, the new handler will
handle the cpus running kdump kernel correctly.
There is a small window between crash and kdump kernel boot, so if a SRAO comes
within this window it will also cause the mce synchronization problem on the
crashing
cpu if we don't bail out the crashing cpu.
Regards,
Xunlei
