[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100416145444.GB5540@lenovo>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:54:44 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
peterz@...radead.org, aris@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 04:46:17PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
...
> > > > + if (hardlockup_panic)
> > > > + panic("Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu %d", this_cpu);
> > > > + else
> > > > + WARN(1, "Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu %d", this_cpu);
> > > > +
> > > > + cpumask_set_cpu(this_cpu, to_cpumask(hardlockup_mask));
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > May be have an arch spin lock there to update your cpu mask safely.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, this is NMI handler path so from what we protect this per-cpu data?
> > Do I miss something? /me confused
>
>
> The cpu mask is not per cpu here, this is a shared bitmap, so you
> can race against other cpus NMIs.
>
> That said, as I suggested, having a per cpu var that we set when we
> warned would be much better than a spinlock here.
>
yeah, saw DECLARE_BITMAP but read it as DEFINE_PER_CPU for some reason.
having any spinlock in irq handler is really under suspicious.
-- Cyrill
--
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