[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56EB4937.1010404@mellanox.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:17:59 -0400
From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
To: <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] nmi_backtrace: add more trigger_*_cpu_backtrace()
methods
On 3/17/2016 6:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The RCU stall-warn stack traces can be ugly, agreed.
>
> That said, RCU used to use NMI-based stack traces, but switched to the
> current scheme due to the NMIs having the unfortunate habit of locking
> things up, which IIRC often meant no stack traces at all. If I recall
> correctly, one of the problems was self-deadlock in printk().
Steven Rostedt enabled the per_cpu printk func support in June 2014, and
the nmi_backtrace code uses it to just capture printk output to percpu
buffers, so I think it's going to be a lot more robust than earlier attempts.
--
Chris Metcalf, Mellanox Technologies
http://www.mellanox.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists