[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1404232344290.3265@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 23:44:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
joern@...fs.org, peterz@...radead.org, cxie@...hat.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sysrq: rcu-ify __handle_sysrq
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > Echoing values into /proc/sysrq-trigger seems to be a popular way to
> > > > get information out of the kernel. However, dumping information about
> > > > thousands of processes, or hundreds of CPUs to serial console can
> > > > result in IRQs being blocked for minutes, resulting in various kinds
> > > > of cascade failures.
> > > >
> > > > The most common failure is due to interrupts being blocked for a very
> > > > long time. This can lead to things like failed IO requests, and other
> > > > things the system cannot easily recover from.
> > >
> > > I bet nobody wants that console output anyway. You do the sysrq then
> > > run dmesg or look in /var/log/messages to see what happened. People
> > > who are experiencing problems such as this should run `dmesg -n 1'
> > > before writing to sysrq-trigger.
> >
> > I don't agree. I have used sysrq-t multiple times in situations where
> > userspace was already dead, but sysrq was still able to provide valuable
> > information about the state of the kernel.
> >
>
> I'm talking about /proc/sysrq-trigger, not the magic key combo.
At the end of the day, that reaches the same __handle_sysrq() codepath,
no?
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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