Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] arm: Rely on generic printing of preemption model.

On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 04:39:02PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

On 2025-02-10 15:16:11 [+0000], Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 01:04:29PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

quoted

On 2025-02-03 15:16:26 [+0100], To linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org wrote:

quoted

__die() invokes later __show_regs() -> show_regs_print_info() which
prints the current preemption model.
Remove it from the initial line.

Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>

Is it okay, to route this via the sched tree?

Sorry, its not obvious where show_regs_print_info() prints this.
dump_stack_print_info() itself doesn't directly. print_worker_info()
doesn't. print_stop_info() doesn't. Not sure whether print_scx_info()
does.

Maybe showing example output would help?

Patch 2/9 adds this. [ https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250203141632.440554-3-bigeasy@linutronix.de/ (local) ]

That explains it - patch 2 is only sent to a very restricted subset
and not even to mailing lists that would be relevant in the absence
of a direct Cc. Ditto patch 1. All I received were patches 3 and 4.

In patch 1:

+	static char buf[128];
...
+		seq_buf_init(&s, buf, 128);

Why not sizeof(buf) ?

For patch 2:

"Use
pr_warn() instead of printk() to pass a loglevel. This makes it part of
generic WARN/ BUG traces.
"

How about cases which use dump_stack_lvl() to dump the output at a more
severe level than warning? Should the message be printed at a less
severe level than the other messages?

This this applied, die("test") on ARM ends as:

[    1.595106] Kernel panic - not syncing: test
[    1.596044] CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Tainted: G        W 6.14.0-rc2-00009-gb80a798df08c-dirty #13 PREEMPT
[    1.596768] Tainted: [W]=WARN
[    1.596946] Hardware name: QEMU QEMU Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 02/02/2022

Hmm. I've no idea what you're testing, what you've quoted makes zero
sense to me.

First...

void die(const char *str, struct pt_regs *regs, int err)

is the die function prototype, so it takes a bit more than what you've
indicated.

Second, "Kernel panic" suggests that panic() has been called. However,
this only happens when die() is called (or more specifically
oops_end()) from either interrupt context (in which case we get
"Kernel panic - Fatal exception in interrupt") or if panic_on_oops
is set ("Kernel panic - Fatal exception").

I don't see a path which would result in
"Kernel panic - not syncing: test" to be printed from this path.

Since __die() does not call dump_stack(), we're not going to call
dump_stack_print_info() from __die(), so I don't think it's appropriate
to remove this information.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!