[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080212171027.GA5160@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:10:27 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] kgdb-light -v10
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > In other words, is it perhaps possible to just *get*rid*of* that
> > "kgdb_active" and "nmicallback" and the whole multi-CPU roundup?
> > Just use a kgdb spinlock around the stuff that actually sends and
> > receives individual packets, and expect the debugger side to sort
> > them out (yeah, I suspect this involves having to add the CPU ID to
> > each packet).
>
> i actually think that the notion of "stopping all system state" is
> rather intuitive from a debugging POV: when you have a bug trigger
> somewhere then getting an NMI to all CPUs and stopping them dead in
> their tracks preserves us the system in its most useful state.
on a second thought - i actually think it's rather possible and
straightforward to do what you suggest. Stopping of all CPUs is still
useful, but should be an optional property. I'll play with this a bit
and see how GDB reacts.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists