lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: wait_on_irq, CPU1
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Manfred Spraul wrote:

>The second CPU is in a bottom half handler, ie most likely the local
>interrupts are enabled.

That's why I suggested SYSRQ+P as first thing :).

> I though about a tiny patch which calls
>smp_call_function() in wait_on_irq(): the IPI would call a stripped down
>version of show_registers().

FYI: Andi just wrote the code to do that for the wait_on_bh case for other
needs, extending original's Andi's patch for wait_on_irq as well should be
trivial.

>What do you think?

I of course agree it's a good idea to get more stack traces and less hang
reports from users. For debugging make no difference because SYSRQ+P
should really show the whole stack trace and CPU where the irq is running
and not only the mere EIP.

BTW, it's possible to drive the IO-APIC to send the IPI with NMI priority
(I did that for other reasons recently) and doing that we'll get a nice
stack trace even without the NMI oopser.

Andrea


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.066 / U:2.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site