[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110726154502.14c7b51b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:45:02 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: better oopsing when frozen
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:24:11 +0200
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > I had a problem with the kernel stopping the machine forever because I got an
> > oops while tasks were frozen. It seems to me that we should thaw when this
> > happens. How about this approach?
>
> Well, we do something like this already for the OOM killer (see
> oom_killer_disable() and friends), so I think it would be better to
> simply extend/modify that mechanism instead of adding a new one
> doing almost exactly the same thing.
>
> I have no complaints about adding thaw_in_oops(), though, so long as
> Andrew thinks it makes sense.
mm... The patch as proposed is very simple, direct, explicit. I
suspect that trying to embed this operation within some other one would
end up producing a less clear result. Sometimes we do exceptional and
weird things, and leaving the code exceptional and weird-looking is
better than hiding it in some framework, if you follow what I mean.
It does need some code comments to explain to people what it's doing
and more importantly why it's doing it. Also, something which doesn't
break the build when CONFIG_FREEZER=n would be nice.
--
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