Re: [外部邮件] Re: [PATCH][v2] hung_task: Panic after fixed number of hung tasks

[Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>]

On 2025/9/28 15:03, Li,Rongqing wrote:
>> On 2025/9/28 13:31, lirongqing wrote:
>>> From: Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>
>>>
>>> Currently, when hung_task_panic is enabled, kernel will panic
>>> immediately upon detecting the first hung task. However, some hung
>>> tasks are transient and the system can recover fully, while others are
>>> unrecoverable and trigger consecutive hung task reports, and a panic is
>> expected.
>>>
>>> This commit adds a new sysctl parameter hung_task_count_to_panic to
>>> allows specifying the number of consecutive hung tasks that must be
>>> detected before triggering a kernel panic. This provides finer control
>>> for environments where transient hangs maybe happen but persistent
>>> hangs should still be fatal.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
>>> Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> It's working as expect. So:
>> Tested-by: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
>>
>> But on second thought: regarding this new sysctl parameter, I was wondering if
>> a name like max_hung_task_count_to_panic might be a bit more explicit, just to
>> follow the convention from max_rcu_stall_to_panic.
>>
> 
> I see that all the hung task sysctl parameters start with "hung_task"? Should we keep this convention? If so, we could name it "hung_task_max_to_panic". If not, we could call it "max_hang_task_to_panic"?

Well, let's see what other folks think ;)