Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> writes:
> Nathan Lynch <nath...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> writes:
>>> Nathan Lynch <nath...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>> When smp_send_safe_nmi_ipi() indicates that the target CPU has
>>>> responded to the IPI, skip the remote paca inspection
>>>> fallback. Otherwise both the sending and target CPUs attempt the
>>>> backtrace, usually creating a misleading ("didn't respond to backtrace
>>>> IPI" is wrong) and interleaved mess:
>>>
>>> Thanks for fixing my bugs for me :)
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your review! I was beginning to think I had missed some
>> subtletly here, thanks for illustrating it.
>>
>> I'll run with your proposed change below for the problem I'm working.
>
> Thanks. I did test it a bit with the test_lockup module, but some real
> world testing would be good too.Been running with this to work some LPM issues and can confirm it waits the intended amount of time before falling back to a remote stack walk, avoiding interleaved traces from source and target CPUs. You can add my tested-by, thanks.
