Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932299AbWA3O7S (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:59:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932301AbWA3O7S (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:59:18 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:57746 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932299AbWA3O7N (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:59:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:58:50 -0500 From: Dave Jones To: Jan Beulich Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] prevent nested panic from soft lockup detection Message-ID: <20060130145850.GB9752@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Jan Beulich , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <43DDE5A1.76F0.0078.0@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43DDE5A1.76F0.0078.0@novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1621 Lines: 40 On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:08:33AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > From: Jan Beulich > > Suppress triggering a nested panic due to soft lockup detection. > > Signed-Off-By: Jan Beulich > > diff -Npru /home/jbeulich/tmp/linux-2.6.16-rc1/kernel/panic.c 2.6.16-rc1-panic-softlockup/kernel/panic.c > --- /home/jbeulich/tmp/linux-2.6.16-rc1/kernel/panic.c 2006-01-27 15:10:49.000000000 +0100 > +++ 2.6.16-rc1-panic-softlockup/kernel/panic.c 2006-01-25 09:55:53.000000000 +0100 > @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt, > printk(KERN_EMERG "Rebooting in %d seconds..",panic_timeout); > for (i = 0; i < panic_timeout*1000; ) { > touch_nmi_watchdog(); > + touch_softlockup_watchdog(); > i += panic_blink(i); > mdelay(1); > i++; > @@ -130,6 +131,7 @@ NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt, > #endif > local_irq_enable(); > for (i = 0;;) { > + touch_softlockup_watchdog(); > i += panic_blink(i); > mdelay(1); > i++; I've been wondering for a while why we don't just make touch_nmi_watchdog do an implicit call to touch_softlockup_watchdog. I can't think of a situation where we'd want to do one but not the other, and adding patches like this seems to be an uphill battle (I know at least two other places that need this off the top of my head). Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/