[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <A5ED84D3BB3A384992CBB9C77DEDA4D41AF699D7@USINDEM103.corp.hds.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:39:30 +0000
From: Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner (tglx@...utronix.de)" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"'mingo@...e.hu' (mingo@...e.hu)" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin (hpa@...or.com)" <hpa@...or.com>,
"dzickus@...hat.com" <dzickus@...hat.com>,
"dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH]Skip unnecessary WARN_ON in panic case
Thank you for giving me the feedback.
>
> So it appears the problem occurs because the other CPUs are not offlined correctly, and still have pending work which may generate
> wakeup IPIs to them?
Right.
>
> The fix would be to either offline them properly - or, if we don't want to do that to keep panicking simple, why do we mark them
> offline? They aren't really offline in a proper way.
To offline cpus properly, it should be done with threads like stop_machine().
But I don't think it is reasonable to kick the threads in panic case.
Therefore, I will make a patch keeping cpus online.
Also, to inform a panicked cpu that other cpus stopped surely,
I will introduce a new cpu_mask like cpu_stopped_mask.
Seiji
--
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