On Friday 29 September 2006 21:18, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > gad, there have been so many all-CPU-backtrace patches over the years. > > > > <optimistically cc's Ingo> > > > > Ingo, do you think that's something which we shuld have in the > > spinlock debugging code? A trace to let us see which CPU is holding > > that lock, and where from? I guess if the other cpu is stuck in > > spin_lock_irqsave() then we'll get stuck delivering the IPI, so it'd > > need to be async. > > used to have this in -rt for i686 and x86_64 for the NMI watchdog tick > to print on all CPUs, in the next tick (i.e. no need to actually > initiate an IPI) - but it was all a bit hacky [but worked]. It fell > victim to some recent flux in that area. You mean spinlock debugging setting a global variable and the NMI watchdog testing that? Makes sense. I can put it on my todo list. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
