From: Chai Wen <chaiw.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
<pbonzini@redhat.com>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] softlockup: make detector be aware of task switch of processes hogging cpu
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:37:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53F54D40.5090707@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53F2AA05.1020509@cn.fujitsu.com>
On 08/19/2014 09:36 AM, Chai Wen wrote:
> On 08/19/2014 04:38 AM, Don Zickus wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 09:02:00PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> So I agree with the motivation of this improvement, but
>>>>>>> is this implementation namespace-safe?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What namespace are you worried about colliding with? I
>>>>>> thought softlockup_ would provide the safety?? Maybe I
>>>>>> am missing something obvious. :-(
>>>>>
>>>>> I meant PID namespaces - a PID in itself isn't guaranteed
>>>>> to be unique across the system.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, I don't think we thought about that. Is there a better
>>>> way to do this? Is there a domain id or something that can
>>>> be OR'd with the pid?
>>>
>>> What is always unique is the task pointer itself. We use pids
>>> when we interface with user-space - but we don't really do that
>>> here, right?
>>
>> No, I don't believe so. Ok, so saving 'current' and comparing that should
>> be enough, correct?
>>
>
>
> I am not sure of the safety about using pid here with namespace.
> But as to the pointer of process, is there a chance that we got a 'historical'
> address saved in the 'softlockup_warn_pid(or address)_saved' and the current
> hogging process happened to get the same task pointer address?
> If it never happens, I think the comparing of address is ok.
>
Hi Ingo
what do you think of Don's solution- 'comparing of task pointer' ?
Anyway this is just an additional check about some very special cases,
so I think the issue that I am concerned above is not a problem at all.
And after learning some concepts about PID namespace, I think comparing
of task pointer is reliable dealing with PID namespace here.
And Don, If you want me to re-post this patch, please let me know that.
thanks
chai wen
> thanks
> chai wen
>
>> Cheers,
>> Don
>> .
>>
>
>
>
--
Regards
Chai Wen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-21 1:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-11 14:49 [PATCH 0/5] watchdog: various fixes Don Zickus
2014-08-11 14:49 ` [PATCH 1/5] watchdog: remove unnecessary head files Don Zickus
2014-08-18 18:03 ` [tip:perf/watchdog] watchdog: Remove unnecessary header files tip-bot for chai wen
2014-08-11 14:49 ` [PATCH 2/5] softlockup: make detector be aware of task switch of processes hogging cpu Don Zickus
2014-08-18 9:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 15:06 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-18 18:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 18:43 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-18 19:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 20:38 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-19 1:36 ` Chai Wen
2014-08-21 1:37 ` Chai Wen [this message]
2014-08-21 2:30 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-21 5:42 ` [PATCH] " chai wen
2014-08-22 1:12 ` Chai Wen
2014-08-22 1:58 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-26 12:51 ` Chai Wen
2014-08-26 14:22 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-27 1:33 ` Chai Wen
2014-08-11 14:49 ` [PATCH 3/5] watchdog: fix print-once on enable Don Zickus
2014-08-18 9:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 9:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 15:07 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-18 18:03 ` [tip:perf/watchdog] watchdog: Fix " tip-bot for Ulrich Obergfell
2014-08-11 14:49 ` [PATCH 4/5] watchdog: control hard lockup detection default Don Zickus
2014-08-18 9:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 15:07 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-18 9:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 10:44 ` Ulrich Obergfell
2014-08-18 15:17 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-18 18:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 18:53 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-18 19:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-11 14:49 ` [PATCH 5/5] kvm: ensure hard lockup detection is disabled by default Don Zickus
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=53F54D40.5090707@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=chaiw.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dzickus@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@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.