William Lee Irwin III wrote:
Very, very wrong. The tasklist scans hold the read side of the lock
and aren't even what's running with interrupts off. The contenders
on the write side are what the NMI oopser oopses.
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 03:29:29PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
*blinks*
So explain how this is "very very wrong", then?
There isn't anything left to explain. So if there's a question, be
specific about it.
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
And supposing the arch reenables interrupts in the write side's
spinloop, you just get a box that silently goes out of service for
extended periods of time, breaking cluster membership and more. The
NMI oopser is just the report of the problem, not the problem itself.
It's not a false report. The box is dead for > 5s at a time.
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 03:29:29PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
The point is, adding a for-each-thread loop or two in /proc isn't
going to cause a problem that isn't already there.
If you had zero for-each-thread loops then you might have a valid
complaint. Seeing as you have more than zero, with slim chances of
reducing that number, then there is no valid complaint.
This entire line of argument is bogus. A preexisting bug of a similar
nature is not grounds for deliberately introducing any bug.