panic_lock is meant to ensure that panic processing takes place only on
one cpu; if any of the other cpus encounter a panic, they will spin
waiting to be shut down.
However, this causes a regression in this scenario:
1. Cpu 0 encounters a panic and acquires the panic_lock
and proceeds with the panic processing.
2. There is an interrupt on cpu 0 that also encounters
an error condition and invokes panic.
3. This second invocation fails to acquire the panic_lock
and enters the infinite while loop in panic_smp_self_stop.
Thus all panic processing is stopped, and the cpu is stuck for eternity
in the while(1) inside panic_smp_self_stop.
To address this, disable local interrupts with local_irq_disable before
acquiring the panic_lock. This will prevent interrupt handlers from
executing during the panic processing, thus avoiding this particular
problem.
Signed-off-by: Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@codeaurora.org>
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
long i, i_next = 0;
int state = 0;
+ /*
+ * Disable local interrupts. This will prevent panic_smp_self_stop
+ * from deadlocking the first cpu that invokes the panic, since
+ * there is nothing to prevent an interrupt handler (that runs
+ * after the panic_lock is acquired) from invoking panic again.
+ */
+ local_irq_disable();
+
/*
* It's possible to come here directly from a panic-assertion and
* not have preempt disabled. Some functions called from here want