[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD8Lp44gPOBh_q1zDy3y1GkrRVAvix5YaNr-+E92+g8Q7fLKJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:37:51 -0600
From: Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>
To: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Cc: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, patches@...aro.org,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.17-rc4 v7 0/6] arm: Implement arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace
Hi,
Thanks a lot for working on this!
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Daniel Thompson
<daniel.thompson@...aro.org> wrote:
> Changes *before* v1:
>
> * This patchset is a hugely cut-down successor to "[PATCH v11 00/19]
> arm: KGDB NMI/FIQ support". Thanks to Thomas Gleixner for suggesting
> the new structure. For historic details see:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/2/227
What's the right way to extend your work in order to get a NMI-like
watchdog hard lockup detector similar to the one on x86?
I'm testing your patches on Exynos4412 and I guess in their current
state they don't go quite this deep, as the only callers of
trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() are sysrq, hung_task and spinlock debug
code - none of which seem as fail-safe as a trigger like a
pre-programmed watchdog NMI interrupt would be.
Do I need to find a way to get CONFIG_FIQ available on this platform
first? and/or CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR?
Thanks
Daniel
--
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