Re: [RFC v3 1/9] sysrq: Implement __handle_sysrq_nolock to avoid recursive locking in kdb

[Colin Cross]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Daniel Thompson
<daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 28/04/14 18:44, Colin Cross wrote:
>>>> Is that case documented somewhere in the code comments?
>>>
>>> Perhaps not near enough to the _nolock but the primary bit of comment is
>>> here (and in same file as kdb_sr).
>>> --- cut here ---
>>>  * kdb_main_loop - After initial setup and assignment of the
>>>  *      controlling cpu, all cpus are in this loop.  One cpu is in
>>>  *      control and will issue the kdb prompt, the others will spin
>>>  *      until 'go' or cpu switch.
>>> --- cut here ---
>>>
>>> The mechanism kgdb uses to quiesce other CPUs means other CPUs cannot be
>>> in irqsave critical sections.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> One of the advantages of FIQ debugger is that it can be triggered from
>> an FIQ (NMI for those in x86 land), and Jason and I have discussed
>> using FIQs for kgdb to allow interrupting cpus stuck in critical
>> sections.  If that gets implemented the above assumption will no
>> longer be correct.
>
> Reviewing this I realized I missed one of the most critical points in
> the above.
>
> Today kdb, even if triggered by FIQ/NMI, would still be likely to wedge
> waiting for the IPI interrupts to be delivered to other processors.
>
> Did you and Jason discuss getting the active CPU to quiesce the other
> processors using FIQ/NMI, or to allow the active CPU to timeout while
> waiting for them the stop?
>
>
> Daniel.

Yes, all cpus would have to get an FIQ/NMI.
--
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/