[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140425124530.52fd696c@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:45:30 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Cc: kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>, patches@...aro.org,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 1/9] sysrq: Implement __handle_sysrq_nolock to avoid
recursive locking in kdb
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:29:22 +0100
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org> wrote:
> If kdb is triggered using SysRq-g then any use of the sr command results
> in the SysRq key table lock being recursively acquired, killing the debug
> session. That patch resolves the problem by introducing a _nolock
> alternative for __handle_sysrq.
>
> Strictly speaking this approach risks racing on the key table when kdb is
> triggered by something other than SysRq-g however in that case any other
> CPU involved should release the spin lock before kgdb parks the slave
> CPUs.
Is that case documented somewhere in the code comments?
-- Steve
--
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