[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] vt/console: try harder to print output when panicing
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:56:05 -0700
Andrew Morton <> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:12:59 +1000
> Dave Airlie <> wrote:
> > Jesse's initial patch commit said:
> >
> > "At panic time (i.e. when oops_in_progress is set) we should try a bit
> > harder to update the screen and make sure output gets to the VT, since
> > some drivers are capable of flipping back to it.
> >
> > So make sure we try to unblank and update the display if called from a
> > panic context."
> >
> > I've enhanced this to add a flag to the vc that console layer can set
> > to indicate they want this behaviour to occur. This also adds support
> > to fbcon for that flag and adds an fb flag for drivers to indicate
> > they want to use the support. It enables this for KMS drivers.
> Interesting. Getting real oops traces from machines running X will
> make Rusty happy, and that's what we're all here for.
> How well does this all work? How reliable is it? What's the success rate?
> What's the downside here? After all, not all oopses are catastrophic -
> sometimes the machine will go blurt and keep running so the user can
> take a look in the logs then perform an orderly reboot, etc. As I
> understand it, those non-catastrophic oopses will now flip the machine
> from X and into the vt display, yes? Can the user get it back to X
> mode?

No, we'll only flip from the panic notifier chain. However if
oops_in_progress is set (as it is whenever bust_spinlocks(1) is called,
i.e. from panic() and oops_begin()) we'll try to print into the fbcon
buffer. In the oops case this should still be safe since the buffer is
pinned, at least in the KMS world.

> Worse, there's also a risk that doing all this new work within the
> oopsing context will screw the machine up, so the user will be
> _deprived_ of an oops report which he otherwise would have been able to
> get from the logs. This is particularly the case when it's the DRI
> stuff which oopsed, which is not exactly an uncommon occurrence lately ;)
> Oh well, the best way to tell is to ship-it-and-see.

To avoid the oops part (which as I said should still be safe) we could
add a new panic_in_progress flag, that would make sure things were no
worse than they are currently.

Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-23 22:09    [W:0.068 / U:3.736 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site