Re: better oopsing when frozen

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, July 27, 2011, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:24:11 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > Hi Rafael,
> > > 
> > > I had a problem with the kernel stopping the machine forever because I got an
> > > oops while tasks were frozen. It seems to me that we should thaw when this
> > > happens. How about this approach?
> > 
> > Well, we do something like this already for the OOM killer (see
> > oom_killer_disable() and friends), so I think it would be better to
> > simply extend/modify that mechanism instead of adding a new one
> > doing almost exactly the same thing.
> > 
> > I have no complaints about adding thaw_in_oops(), though, so long as
> > Andrew thinks it makes sense.
> 
> mm...  The patch as proposed is very simple, direct, explicit.  I
> suspect that trying to embed this operation within some other one would
> end up producing a less clear result.  Sometimes we do exceptional and
> weird things, and leaving the code exceptional and weird-looking is
> better than hiding it in some framework, if you follow what I mean.

My point is that instead of using the oom_killer_disabled variable in
page_alloc.c, we could use a oom_killer_disabled() function returning
the value of the new tasks_are_frozen variable.  Then,
oom_killer_disable/enable() won't be necessary any more.

> It does need some code comments to explain to people what it's doing
> and more importantly why it's doing it.  Also, something which doesn't
> break the build when CONFIG_FREEZER=n would be nice.

Right.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/