[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080310093024.55a4ff90@bree.surriel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:30:24 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lwoodman@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] extend sysrq-p functionality to cover all CPUs
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:47:59 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:14:58 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com> wrote:
>
> > SysRP-P is not all that useful on SMP systems, since the sysrq
> > irq rarely ends up on the CPU that we actually want to investigate.
> Doesn't everyone have a copy of this somewhere? ;)
Yes, but the old version of the patch calls on_each_cpu from
sysrq context, which is illegal since it could cause a deadlock.
> However it does have the downside that info can scroll away on large cpu
> counts. Maybe it should be a new sysrq command?
It used to be sysrq-w in the patches that everybody has, but that
letter got taken for sysrq_showstate_blocked_op.
Only sysrq h, j, l, y and z are still free. H is needed for help,
leaving just j, l, y and z.
I can see your point about overflowing the screen, however just
sysrq-p seems like a waste to have because it will probably not
print anything useful on a large CPU system...
If you still want it to be a separate letter, just let me know
which one of the last four I should take.
--
All rights reversed.
--
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