[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C6A2618.2050403@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:03:04 +0800
From: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockup_detector: Make DETECT_HUNT_TASK default depend
on LOCKUP_DETECTOR
(Just came back from vacation)
>> Maybe a better change would be to make it more generally available - right now
>> it's:
>>
>> config LOCKUP_DETECTOR
>> bool "Detect Hard and Soft Lockups"
>> depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && !S390
>>
>> which means that it cannot be enabled when DEBUG_KERNEL is off.
>>
>> So i think we should:
>>
>> - Remove the s390 hack and add an ARCH_HAS_LOCKUP_DETECTOR flag
>
> If we do this, we'll need to add this config on every archs but s390.
> We should better have ARCH_WANT_NO_LOCKUP_DETECTOR. I know that
> "negative" meaning configs suck, but otherwise we would lose this
> support on many archs.
>
> Why s390 doesn't want the softlockup detector to begin with?
>
>> - Remove the DEBUG_KERNEL dependency
>
> Yeah.
>
Seems we haven't come to an agreement yet? I don't know much about the
lockup detector code, so please take care of this. :)
--
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