[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160414151933.GF20425@atomlin.usersys.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:19:33 +0100
From: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] nmi_backtrace: do a local dump_stack() instead of
a self-NMI
On Tue 2016-04-05 13:26 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> Currently on arm there is code that checks whether it should call
> dump_stack() explicitly, to avoid trying to raise an NMI when the
> current context is not preemptible by the backtrace IPI. Similarly,
> the forthcoming arch/tile support uses an IPI mechanism that does
> not support generating an NMI to self.
>
> Accordingly, move the code that guards this case into the generic
> mechanism, and invoke it unconditionally whenever we want a
> backtrace of the current cpu. It seems plausible that in all cases,
> dump_stack() will generate better information than generating a
> stack from the NMI handler. The register state will be missing,
> but that state is likely not particularly helpful in any case.
>
> Or, if we think it is helpful, we should be capturing and emitting
> the current register state in all cases when regs == NULL is passed
> to nmi_cpu_backtrace().
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/kernel/smp.c | 9 ---------
> lib/nmi_backtrace.c | 9 +++++++++
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Thanks Chris.
Acked-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>
--
Aaron Tomlin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists