All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	pbonzini@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] watchdog: control hard lockup detection default
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:42 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140730134342.GA7959@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140725112510.GA3456@hawk.usersys.redhat.com>

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 01:25:11PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > to enable hard lockup detection explicitly.
> > 
> > I think changing the 'watchdog_thresh' while 'watchdog_running' is true should
> > _not_ enable hard lockup detection as a side-effect, because a user may have a
> > 'sysctl.conf' entry such as
> > 
> >    kernel.watchdog_thresh = ...
> > 
> > or may only want to change the 'watchdog_thresh' on the fly.
> > 
> > I think the following flow of execution could cause such undesired side-effect.
> > 
> >    proc_dowatchdog
> >      if (watchdog_user_enabled && watchdog_thresh) {
> > 
> >          watchdog_enable_hardlockup_detector
> >            hardlockup_detector_enabled = true
> > 
> >          watchdog_enable_all_cpus
> >            if (!watchdog_running) {
> >                ...
> >            } else if (sample_period_changed)
> >                       update_timers_all_cpus
> >                         for_each_online_cpu
> >                             update_timers
> >                               watchdog_nmi_disable
> >                               ...
> >                               watchdog_nmi_enable
> > 
> >                                 watchdog_hardlockup_detector_is_enabled
> >                                   return true
> > 
> >                                 enable perf counter for hard lockup detection
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Uli
> 
> Nice catch. Looks like this will need a v2. Paolo, do we have a
> consensus on the proc echoing? Or should that be revisited in the v2 as
> well?

As discussed privately, how about something like this to handle that case:
(applied on top of these patches)

Cheers,
Don

diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
index 34eca29..027fb6c 100644
--- a/kernel/watchdog.c
+++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
@@ -666,7 +666,12 @@ int proc_dowatchdog(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
 	 * watchdog_*_all_cpus() function takes care of this.
 	 */
 	if (watchdog_user_enabled && watchdog_thresh) {
-		watchdog_enable_hardlockup_detector(true);
+		/*
+		 * Prevent a change in watchdog_thresh accidentally overriding
+		 * the enablement of the hardlockup detector.
+		 */
+		if (watchdog_user_enabled != old_enabled)
+			watchdog_enable_hardlockup_detector(true);
 		err = watchdog_enable_all_cpus(old_thresh != watchdog_thresh);
 	} else
 		watchdog_disable_all_cpus();

  reply	other threads:[~2014-07-30 13:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-07-24 10:13 [PATCH 0/3] watchdog: kvm: disable hard lockup detection by default Andrew Jones
2014-07-24 10:13 ` [PATCH 1/3] watchdog: fix print-once on enable Andrew Jones
2014-07-24 10:13 ` [PATCH 2/3] watchdog: control hard lockup detection default Andrew Jones
2014-07-24 10:46   ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-07-24 11:18     ` Ulrich Obergfell
2014-07-24 11:26       ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-07-24 11:44         ` Ulrich Obergfell
2014-07-24 11:45           ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-07-24 12:02             ` Ulrich Obergfell
2014-07-25  8:32   ` Ulrich Obergfell
2014-07-25 11:25     ` Andrew Jones
2014-07-30 13:43       ` Don Zickus [this message]
2014-07-30 14:16         ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-07-30 17:07           ` Don Zickus
2014-08-08 13:53   ` [PATCH v2 " Andrew Jones
2014-07-24 10:13 ` [PATCH 3/3] kvm: ensure hard lockup detection is disabled by default Andrew Jones

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20140730134342.GA7959@redhat.com \
    --to=dzickus@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=drjones@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=uobergfe@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.