[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101110180711.GB22410@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:07:11 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: fweisbec@...il.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] watchdog: touch_nmi_watchdog should only touch local
cpu not every one
* Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> When you say the other CPUs will be a lot more noisy, is that because they are
> busy processing backtraces for the first cpu to spew? I guess I don't understand
> how the other CPUs could have their interrupts off the whole time while the first
> cpu is spewing a backtrace (just trying to educate myself).
Say the kernel crashes on a CPU and keeps spewing new oopses, while write-holding
tasklist_lock.
Any other CPU that delivers a signal from IRQ context, trying to take the
tasklist_lock, will loop indefinitely until that crashing CPU releases the lock.
In that case the 'secondary' NMI warnings from all other CPUs (eventually every CPU
gets stuck in such a scenario) will start spewing NMI lockup messages.
Dunno. Maybe we should do your change - but also have an option to 'shut up' the
kernel after the first hard oops [not warning]. That would silence the secondary NMI
watchdog messages as well.
Thanks,
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