On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 01:34:19PM +0100, Michael Holzheu wrote: > Hello Andrew, hello linux-arch, > > > Well OK. Maybe some architectures do have this problem - who would > > notice? If that is the case, we just made the failure cases much more > > common. Could you check, please? > > @linux-arch: > > This patch introduces a spinlock to prevent parallel execution of the > panic code. Andrew pointed out that this might be a problem for > architectures that can't do smp_send_stop() on remote CPUs that have > interrupts disabled. When irq-disabled CPUs execute panic() in parallel, > we then would have looping CPUs. x86 has such problem and I posted a patch recently to fix it https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/13/426 Cheers, Don
