[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140513183600.GA10992@potion.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 20:36:01 +0200
From: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/x86: set panic notifier priority to minimum
2014-05-13 18:18+0100, David Vrabel:
> On 13/05/14 17:56, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > Execution is not going to continue after telling Xen about the crash.
> > Let other panic notifiers run by postponing the final hypercall as much
> > as possible.
>
> I can't tell how important this fix is.
Sorry, I could have put reasoning in the commit:
Not very important, depends on long linux+xen is going to last.
This patch is thinking about users/developers that would eventually find
a problem with it, and questioned our inteligence -- it makes no sense
to use the default priority for a notifier that is (can be) final.
INT_MIN is set because I don't think that Xen indended to resume domains
after crash. (We should reason any other value as well.)
> What notifiers does this allow to be run? How important are they?
Priority 0 (default) or lower. Registration is stable and paravirt does
it early, so there won't be many priority 0 users before it. (None now.)
Hardware that can be passed through (most notably graphic cards), and
few debug markers (dump_kernel_offset, hung_task_panic) are affected at
the moment.
--
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