> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
