Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756902Ab1FFRoJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 13:44:09 -0400 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:42223 "HELO mailout-de.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756618Ab1FFRoH (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 13:44:07 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18ZjcQ7Ez4Zlfu2yBF5aa+p8UGISC5hUykwKy3pLb /FJltQo2zQy4b6 Subject: Re: [debug patch] printk: Add a printk killswitch to robustify NMI watchdog messages From: Mike Galbraith To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Arne Jansen , Linus Torvalds , mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, npiggin@kernel.dk, akpm@linux-foundation.org, frank.rowand@am.sony.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20110606150808.GF30348@elte.hu> References: <4DEBB05C.8090506@die-jansens.de> <4DEBB3DA.8060001@die-jansens.de> <20110605172052.GA1036@elte.hu> <4DEBBFF9.2030101@die-jansens.de> <20110605185957.GA3452@elte.hu> <4DEBD95B.6030901@die-jansens.de> <20110605194419.GA12965@elte.hu> <4DEBE3DF.70104@die-jansens.de> <1307350909.2353.7408.camel@twins> <20110606150409.GE30348@elte.hu> <20110606150808.GF30348@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 19:44:00 +0200 Message-ID: <1307382240.7490.1.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1017 Lines: 25 On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 17:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > The real fix might be to remove the lockdep_off()/on() call from > > printk(), that looks actively evil ... we had to hack through > > several layers of side-effects before we found the real bug - so > > it's not like the off()/on() made things more robust! > > The other obvious fix would be to *remove* the blasted wakeup from > printk(). It's a serious debugging robustness violation and it's not > like the wakeup is super important latency-wise. > > We *already* have a timer tick driven klogd wakeup poll routine. So i > doubt we'd have many problems from not doing wakeups from printk(). > Opinions? Seconded! I routinely whack that damn thing. -Mike -- 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/