Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1343098
| From | Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [linux-next, x86_64] no backtrace after "printk/nmi: generic solution for safe printk in NMI" |
| Date | 2016-02-25 11:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r61uW-2sM-25@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <r60Ix-1NY-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On (02/25/16 18:46), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello Petr,
>
> seem that commit b927968830676373caf4241e80d8b447133f84b2
> Author: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
> Date: Thu Feb 25 13:00:35 2016 +1100
>
> printk/nmi: generic solution for safe printk in NMI
>
> printk() takes some locks and could not be used a safe way in NMI context.
>
> The chance of a deadlock is real especially when printing stacks from all
> CPUs. This particular problem has been addressed on x86 by the commit
> a9edc8809328 ("x86/nmi: Perform a safe NMI stack trace on all CPUs").
>
> The patchset brings two big advantages. First, it makes the NMI
> backtraces safe on all architectures for free. Second, it makes all NMI
> messages almost safe on all architectures (the temporary buffer is
> limited. We still should keep the number of messages in NMI context at
> minimum).
> [..]
>
>
> makes my x86_64 boxen unhappy, I see no CPU backtraces and no panic messages
> on HARDLOCKUPs (CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_HARDLOCKUP_PANIC_VALUE=1).
>
> does it work for you?
just for note,
I reverted (next-20160225) the following commits:
bdcdb76696402e1a0821db6bcccb2b4de4049f27
7ad17383fa428d1c89d2be95d00806f33df69dfd
054a26c149a5add6d27d154f2025ee2605d9f25d
c2dbc8fd415835a71b0dee0f3f3a353d116f8731
3fd57f62ac2a8de6b402bf5f6aeb3a7d1e3f11a3
3ff0033c1e878b8bd8fce6efcd1b432b24f1d321
-- still no HARDLOCKUP panic backtraces on a console.
reverting of
b927968830676373caf4241e80d8b447133f84b2 (plus MIPS config conflict resolution)
-- fixed the problem for me. I've tested several times.
the sample code that I use for testing is very simple (well.. but it
does the job):
---
u64 s, e;
unsigned long flags;
local_irq_save(flags);
s = local_clock() >> 31UL;
pr_err(">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>START_THE_TEST\n");
while (1) {
e = local_clock() >> 31UL;
if (e - s > %%YOUR_WATCHDOG_THRESHOLD%%)
goto out;
}
out:
pr_err(">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>END_THE_TEST\n");
local_irq_restore(flags);
---
most likely I'll be able to reply only tomorrow (in case if there will be any questions).
-ss
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[linux-next, x86_64] no backtrace after "printk/nmi: generic solution for safe printk in NMI" Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 10:50 +0100
Re: [linux-next, x86_64] no backtrace after "printk/nmi: generic solution for safe printk in NMI" Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 11:40 +0100
Re: [linux-next, x86_64] no backtrace after "printk/nmi: generic solution for safe printk in NMI" Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:40 +0100
csiph-web