Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750787AbWAaMfW (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:35:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750791AbWAaMfW (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:35:22 -0500 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:6272 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750787AbWAaMfW (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:35:22 -0500 To: Dave Jones Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jbeulich@novell.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] prevent nested panic from soft lockup detection References: <43DDE5A1.76F0.0078.0@novell.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <20060130145850.GB9752@redhat.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> From: Andi Kleen In-Reply-To: <20060130145850.GB9752@redhat.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 Date: 31 Jan 2006 13:35:18 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1819 Lines: 42 Dave Jones writes: > 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). Very good idea. Someone did it already in the SUSE kernel and it helped considerably there. -Andi - 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/