[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <06cfa3459ed848cf8f228997b983cf53@h3c.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:04:54 +0000
From: Liuye <liu.yeC@....com>
To: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
CC: "jason.wessel@...driver.com" <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
"dianders@...omium.org" <dianders@...omium.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org"
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"jirislaby@...nel.org" <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
"kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: 答复: 答复: 答复: [PATCH] kdb: Fix the deadlock issue in KDB debugging.
>On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 08:37:11AM +0000, Liuye wrote:
>> I know that you said schedule_work is not NMI save, which is the first
>> issue. Perhaps it can be fixed using irq_work_queue. But even if
>> irq_work_queue is used to implement it, there will still be a deadlock
>> problem because slave cpu1 still has not released the running queue
>> lock of master CPU0.
>
>This doesn't sound right to me. Why do you think CPU1 won't release the run queue lock?
In this example, CPU1 is waiting for CPU0 to release dbg_slave_lock.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists