|
From: Seiji A. <sei...@hd...> - 2012-12-01 01:05:27
|
> What I actually meant was: can "this" CPU avoid stopping other CPUs so early? If we stop the other CPUs when this CPU is ready to > stop itself then there will never be such deadlocks. Let me explain my opinion. When we focus on the deadlock only, the code will be simple by moving smp_send_stop() at the end of panic(). But, panic situation is not normal. I don't think that keeping running multiple cpus is safe, because they may touch corrupted data/variables and unnecessary panic/BUG() may happen. IMO, cpus should be stopped "as early as" possible when panic happens. And then panic() has to take minimal steps with a single cpu. - output messages - kicking troubleshooting features like kdump/kmsg_dump Seiji |