Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:19:56 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86 NMI: Be smarter about invoking panic() inside NMI handler. | From | "Andrei E. Warkentin" <> |
| |
Hi Don,
Thank you for your feedback!
2012/3/27 Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>: > > Hmm, if try_panic fails, then the cpu continues on executing code. This > might further corrupt an already broken system. So I don't think this > patch will work as is. >
I see what you are saying. I could make the argument that this kind of system corruption could occur anyway even if you did panic inside an IRQ context instead, but I would tend to agree that your proposed solution is much better than adding another panic interface.
> Perhaps instead of panic'ing in the NMI context, we use irq_work and panic > in an interrupt context instead. We still get the system to stop (though > it might still execute some interrupts) and it will be out of the NMI > context. > > However, you will still run into a similar problem when in the > panic/reboot case we shutdown all the remote cpus and have them sitting in > a similar cpu_relax loop in the NMI context, while the panic'ing cpu > cleans things up. >
Sorry, could you clarify what you mean? How does this affect KDB usage?
A -- 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/
| |