From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-100.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-100.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 492CB1870CB; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:48:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.100 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711360090; cv=none; b=PmaUjRxVfQdb6P8NYwCiyI+mvVfScVeFfG2te0vpvaWP4RkKQZuzG6zLRG1woG6CJkUxLrAZjUgqOLJiZKzwCHmZSEaER0WdgT9XvrT5PS3mMwaL6Z1aV4PyH1l3P2HGPyZMjt7U/ifsGMoReYX7Ns+elW3h9CRGyH+iIxEkn7o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711360090; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CqL8N3jTBybuBJNQiRBKr+JMOLQvMsgRNLLqDTJ9OJ0=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:From:Subject:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=DLl+SozkaGbSzGlvMbeZaoMBEQF320Qp7tSPMebuYqvB8K7PkRhqHk2cBBRrZ1gjY2qAhLEg2RyiwyHXvZXt7jOrg1eGR8yFhrfPHFhhE4JVLz2tnL7pFL/7RfLkMj0+xpPWjX9dLApwqjUdizkaWXIXZKxBVk7iYNV95tES31o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=VOh6MWc0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.100 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="VOh6MWc0" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1711360085; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:From:Subject:To:Content-Type; bh=QmV+g4GmhsxbZGKeBGO2QlNGUE+VuS1qiEGgbu8EpKw=; b=VOh6MWc0hBgULdgEa8EUijWA92CqIjYcGrrFAmC88UMqwoHbjLwAhFChIhErqVEtGuVaRdw4ZCNfH+jjQ77m0iQWTrYe1++onhtk0t8wpJ5bTANk2n1HmCVr3DjoAvTTEq0sztso/61DJtatEppxUUkdjNGZX+/al2BI+jFXQ3w= X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R141e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=ay29a033018045170;MF=yaoma@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=16;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0W3EQlKh_1711360081; Received: from 30.178.67.255(mailfrom:yaoma@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0W3EQlKh_1711360081) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:48:04 +0800 Message-ID: <6109a3e3-ca88-4a4d-86c5-c4eb0d7f6f9c@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:47:58 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Bitao Hu Subject: Re: [PATCHv12 4/4] watchdog/softlockup: report the most frequent interrupts To: Thomas Gleixner , dianders@chromium.org, liusong@linux.alibaba.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, pmladek@suse.com, kernelfans@gmail.com, deller@gmx.de, npiggin@gmail.com, tsbogend@alpha.franken.de, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, yaoma@linux.alibaba.com References: <20240306125208.71803-1-yaoma@linux.alibaba.com> <20240306125208.71803-5-yaoma@linux.alibaba.com> <87zfuofzld.ffs@tglx> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <87zfuofzld.ffs@tglx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Thomas On 2024/3/24 04:43, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, Mar 06 2024 at 20:52, Bitao Hu wrote: >> + if (__this_cpu_read(snapshot_taken)) { >> + for_each_active_irq(i) { >> + count = kstat_get_irq_since_snapshot(i); >> + tabulate_irq_count(irq_counts_sorted, i, count, NUM_HARDIRQ_REPORT); >> + } >> + >> + /* >> + * We do not want the "watchdog: " prefix on every line, >> + * hence we use "printk" instead of "pr_crit". >> + */ > > You are not providing any justification why the prefix is not > wanted. Just saying 'We do not want' does not cut it and who is 'We'. I > certainly not. > > I really disagree because the prefixes are very useful for searching log > files. So not having it makes it harder to filter out for no reason. > Regarding the use of printk() instead of pr_crit(), I have had a discussion with Liu Song and Douglas in PATCHv1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAD=FV=WEEQeKX=ec3Gr-8CKs2K0MaWN3V0-0yOsuret0qcB_AA@mail.gmail.com/ Please allow me to elaborate on my reasoning. The purpose of the report_cpu_status() function I implemented is similar to that of print_modules(), show_regs(), and dump_stack(). These functions are designed to assist in analyzing the causes of a soft lockup, rather than to report that a soft lockup has occurred. Therefore, I think that adding the "watchdog: " prefix to every line is redundant and not concise. Besides, the existing pr_emerg() in the watchdog.c file is already sufficient for searching useful information in the logs. The information I added, along with the call tree and other data, is located near the line with the "watchdog: " prefix. Are the two reasons I've provided reasonable? Best Regards, Bitao Hu