[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180629171641.GM18979@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 10:16:42 -0700
From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] x86/split_lock: Handle #AC exception for split
lock
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 09:33:54AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >> + WARN_ONCE(1, "A split lock issue is detected. Please FIX it\n");
> >
> > But, warning here is also not super useful. Shouldn't we be dumping out
> > the info in 'regs' instead of the current context? We don't care about
> > the state in the #AC handler, we care about 'regs'.
But WARN dump not only the state in the #AC handler, but also dump the regs
in the current context. And WARN dumps stack.
>
> Maybe:
>
> WARN_ONCE(1, "split lock detected at %pF\n", regs[EIP]);
Should we dump redundant regs info while WARN shows them all already?
Thanks.
-Fenghua
Powered by blists - more mailing lists