lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86 NMI: Be smarter about invoking panic() inside NMI handler.
From
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-29 09:23    [W:0.049 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site