>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/