Dave Jones <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:08:33AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> > From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
> >
> > Suppress triggering a nested panic due to soft lockup detection.
> >
> > Signed-Off-By: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
> >
> > diff -Npru /home/jbeulich/tmp/linux-2.6.16-rc1/kernel/panic.c 2.6.16-rc1-panic-softlockup/kernel/panic.c
> > --- /home/jbeulich/tmp/linux-2.6.16-rc1/kernel/panic.c 2006-01-27 15:10:49.000000000 +0100
> > +++ 2.6.16-rc1-panic-softlockup/kernel/panic.c 2006-01-25 09:55:53.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt,
> > printk(KERN_EMERG "Rebooting in %d seconds..",panic_timeout);
> > for (i = 0; i < panic_timeout*1000; ) {
> > touch_nmi_watchdog();
> > + touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> > i += panic_blink(i);
> > mdelay(1);
> > i++;
> > @@ -130,6 +131,7 @@ NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt,
> > #endif
> > local_irq_enable();
> > for (i = 0;;) {
> > + touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> > i += panic_blink(i);
> > mdelay(1);
> > i++;
>
> I've been wondering for a while why we don't just make touch_nmi_watchdog
> do an implicit call to touch_softlockup_watchdog. I can't think of a situation
> where we'd want to do one but not the other, and adding patches like this
> seems to be an uphill battle (I know at least two other places that need
> this off the top of my head).
Very good idea.
Someone did it already in the SUSE kernel and it helped considerably
there.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
