Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17 | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Fri, 08 May 2015 07:12:11 +0200 |
| |
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 04:16 +0000, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote: > So Mike, is this reason strong enough for you ?
Nope. I think you did the right thing in removing your dependency on jiffies reliability in a dying box. You don't have to convince me of anything though, CC timer subsystem maintainer, see what he says.
> I understand your point: solve the BUG, and I do tend to agree with you. > > But by design and implementation, the BUG() is just a beginning of the end for dying kernel. > And what happens in between this 'the beginning' and 'the end' is not less important. > (because say, on our platform we want to get clean RAMDUMP to analyze what happened, and for that we want to get clean reboot)
I don't see anybody else having any trouble getting crash dumps. I spent yet another long day just yesterday, rummaging through one.
> Also, > If somebody's design is to legally Crash the kernel (e.g. where kernel is actually not faulty). > Then, I do expect that tick/timekeeping framework do its job as long as it can do, and it should do, because kernel is not faulty. > But in this case it doesn’t handover jiffies incrementing job sanely.
It seems odd to me to use BUG() for what you appear to be using it for.. not that I know exactly what that it mind you, but when you said when some other gizmo in your box has a problem you crash the kernel, my head tilted to the side - surely there's a more controlled response possible than poking the big red self destruct button ;-)
-Mike
| |