"Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org> writes:
> "Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
> >
> > Summary: I triggered a condition in 2.4.14-pre8 where SysRq triggered
> > but would not print reports. I managed to unstick the condition but
> > had played to much to determine the root cause. My guess is that
> > somehow my default loglevel was messed up. Full information is
> > provided just case I did not muddy the waters too much.
>
> Do you know what the console loglevel was when you tried
> to use Alt-SysRq-M (show_mem) or Alt-SysRq-T (show tasks ==
> show_state)? (first value listed in /proc/sys/kernel/printk file)
I was in single user mode so it shouldn't have been changed
from it's default value. But it might have been.
> show_mem() and show_state() don't modify the current value of
> console_loglevel; they depend on the sysrq handler to do that.
> That value could be too low/small.
Right. That looks to be why I couldn't see my debug information.
There was definentily something hosed at the kernel level
that shouldn't have been. We should be very careful before
we move 2.4.14-pre8 to 2.4.14. Hopefully I/someone can find a way
to reproduce a lockup and track it down.
> Aye, sysrq_handle_term sets console_loglevel to 8 and leaves it there.
That is good to know thanks.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 21:00:28 EST