"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Can these be cleaned up in any reasonable way?
> >>
> >> It needs some additional spinlock in there. People have moaned for over a
> >> year, patches have been floating about but nobody has taken the time to
> >> finish one off and submit it.
> >
> > I considered it for x86-64 and even implemented it, but never submitted
> > in fear of deadlocks e.g. when an oops recurses. For this a
> > spinlock_timeout() would be useful. Print anyways when you cannot get the
> > lock in a second or two.
>
> The trouble is that the subsystems you want may be broken (eg timers).
> IMHO it's better to just spew whatever you can (the current crap) ...
> wait a couple of seconds, then have another go at doing it properly.
A recursive oops is easy enough to detect anyway.
preempt_disable();
if (oops_cpu == -1 || oops_cpu != smp_processor_id()) {
_raw_spin_lock(&oops_lock);
oops_cpu = smp_processor_id();
}
<current stuff>
oops_cpu = -1;
spin_lock_init(&oops_lock);
preempt_enable();
or something like that.
> That way people can't complain it's worse than it is now in any way ;-)
Too many complaints, too few unified diffs on this one.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 15 2003 - 22:00:26 EST