Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Dec 1999 23:59:12 +0100 (CET) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |