[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080718222512.GD31073@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:25:12 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc: Roman Mindalev <lists@...0n.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Bug #11035] System hangs on 2.6.26-rc8
* Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> wrote:
> BTW, I didn't consider that argument (of continuing as far as
> possible) before, but it's a good one; if we don't crash completely,
> the user can still copy the log we have a better report of it. I guess
> kerneloops.org is currently missing out a great deal of reports which
> all shut down the machine immediately without a chance to go into the
> log.
yes. There are two techniques to improve the 'yield' of kerneloops.org:
1) make a better job of getting the logs off the box 2) make a better
job of not crashing the box when we can do better.
For example lockdep tries very hard to never crash the box. It is a
feature that warns about a chance of a lockup, not about a lockup itself
- so crashing the box at the point of the bug detection is
counter-productive.
The same applies to DEBUG_PAGEALLOC as well: technically nobody (but the
buggy code itself) is hurt by accessing already freed data. So we could
try and let it run.
(Btw., this might be a way to share a mechanism between kmemcheck and
DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, and make kmemcheck more useful to the general kernel as
a whole.)
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