[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160809123735.GF13300@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 14:37:35 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
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>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/4] nmi_backtrace: do a local dump_stack() instead of
a self-NMI
On Mon 2016-08-08 12:03:36, 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>
> Acked-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>
Sounds and looks fine to me.
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Best Regards,
Petr Mladek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists