Stop scheduler on panic
avg at FreeBSD.org
Fri Dec 2 22:32:07 UTC 2011
on 02/12/2011 20:40 John Baldwin said the following:
> On 12/2/11 12:18 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/12/2 John Baldwin<jhb at freebsd.org>:
>>> On 12/2/11 5:05 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>>> on 02/12/2011 06:36 John Baldwin said the following:
>>>>> Ah, ok (I had thought SCHEDULER_STOPPED was going to always be true when
>>>>> kdb was
>>>>> active). But I think these two changes should cover critical_exit() ok.
>>>> I attempted to start a discussion about this a few times already :-)
>>>> Should we treat kdb context the same as SCHEDULER_STOPPED context (in the
>>>> current definition) ? That is, skip all locks in the same fashion?
>>>> There are pros and contras.
>>> kdb should not block on locks, no. Most debugger commands should not go
>>> near locks anyway unless they are intended to carefully modify the existing
>>> system in a safe manner (such as the 'kill' command which should only be
>>> using try locks and fail if it cannot safely post the signal).
>> The biggest problem to KDB as the same as panic is that doing proper
>> 'continue' is impossible.
>> One of the features of the 'skip-locking' path is that it doesn't take
>> into account fast locking paths, where sometimes the lock can succeed
>> and other fails and you don't know about them. Also the restarted CPUs
>> can find corrupted datas (as they can be arbitrarely updated), I'm
>> sure it is too much panic prone.
> Yes, my thought is that kdb commands, etc. should be using dedicated routines
> that do not use locks whenever possible. The problem of a user
> calling an arbitrary routine is not solvable (so I don't think we should try to
> solve that, you use 'call' at your own risk), but built-in commands should
> explicitly either 1) not use locking, or 2) only use try locks and fail out
> cleanly (including dropping any try locks acquired) if a try fails. Now, that's
> an ideal view, I don't know how close we are to that in practice or if it is a
> realistically attainable goal.
I agree with what Attilio and you say. Initially it was tempting for me to
apply the same SCHEDULER_STOPPED stopped medicine to the kdb_active context, but
after trying to deal with kdb_active x SCHEDULER_STOPPED x ukbd situation I
really changed my mind.
I would classify the code that can be called in kdb_active context as follows:
o debugger code proper (kdb, ddb, gdb stub, etc) - this obviously must not
(doesn't have to) use any locking
o code that can be invoked via 'call' command - this is essentially any code and
I don't think that it can/should do anything special for the kdb_active context [*]
o debugger helper routines - those that do something trivial should not acquire
any locks; those that access shared resources should try the relevant locks and
bail out if a resource can be in inconsistent state, or should be equipped to
deal correctly with such a state; this is the same as what you say above
o common code that the debuggers have to use - most obviously this is console
code and drivers that serve a particular console; on one hand those drivers can
have a non-trivial state that must be lock protected during normal operation, on
the other hand the debugger must disregard those locks and grab its console;
this is the most complex case in my opinion.
Dealing with panics is much simpler, because it's a one way road to a system
reset. Possibility to enter and exit debugger implies additional complications.
So it doesn't look like SCHEDULER_STOPPED can be used equivalently for panic and
for kdb_active. kdb_active requires more elaborate handling.
[*] - but currently we depend on some "general purpose" routines to be
'callable' from debugger where we should really have a debugger command; the
most popular example is 'call doadump'.
More information about the freebsd-current