[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101110070808.46c4adb5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 07:08:08 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, fweisbec@...il.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] watchdog: touch_nmi_watchdog should only touch
local cpu not every one
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:49:41 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > I ran into a scenario where while one cpu was stuck and should have panic'd
> > because of the NMI watchdog, it didn't. The reason was another cpu was spewing
> > stack dumps on to the console. Upon investigation, I noticed that when writing to
> > the console and also when dumping the stack, the watchdog is touched.
> >
> > This causes all the cpus to reset their NMI watchdog flags and the 'stuck' cpu
> > just spins forever.
>
> Hm, the flip side is that if a CPU is stuck spewing backtraces, we will now make all
> the other CPUs a lot more noisy - which might only 'lock up' because this CPU is
> stuck spewing oopses, right?
>
> Andrew, what would be your preference?
>
I saw you were cc'ed and felt rather pleased that I wouldn't have to
decide ;)
I guess the NMI really is a cpu-local concept rather than a
machine-wide one. And touch_nmi_watchdog() says "this CPU isn't
stuck", rather than "this CPU and all those others aren't stuck", yes?
--
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