From: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, peterz@infradead.org, gorcunov@gmail.com,
aris@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
randy.dunlap@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] [watchdog] convert touch_softlockup_watchdog to touch_watchdog
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:31:42 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100421213142.GY15159@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100421204559.GB8677@nowhere>
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:46:01PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:23:59AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > Just a scripted conversion to remove touch_softlockup_watchdog.
> >
> > Also converts the once case of touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs to
> > touch_all_watchdogs.
> >
> > This is done as part of the removal of the old softlockup code and
> > transition to the new softlockup code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
>
>
> In fact I worry a bit about this unification of watchdog touching.
> When we touch the softlockup watchdog, do we also want to touch
> the nmi watchdog?
>
> Most of the time, I think we don't want to. We usually touch the
> softlockup detector because we know we are abnormally delaying
> the softlockup kthread from being scheduled, and if we are in such
> situation, it means we are doing something in a sensitive context:
> typically the kind of context favorable to create hardlockups...
>
> But the opposite is right: if we touch the nmi watchdog: it means we
> are abnormally delaying irqs, which means we also are abnormally
> delaying the softlockup kthread from being scheduled, so if we
> touch the nmi watchdog, we also want to touch the softlockup
> detector.
>
> Hence I guess we want to keep the current state:
>
> - touch_nmi_watchdog() = touch softlockup and nmi watchdogs
> - touch_softlockup_watchdog() = only touch softlockup watchdog
Hmm ok I see what you are saying. A little tweak and I have this
compiled-tested only patch that I think satisifies you.
I didn't really touch the touch_nmi_watchdog() code in the kernel, so it
still calls a stub function in kernel/watchdog.c. Add a boolean to that
path and I think it accomplishes the logic you are looking for.
Cheers,
Don
diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
index 9898c7c..c1a89ac 100644
--- a/kernel/watchdog.c
+++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ int watchdog_enabled;
int __read_mostly softlockup_thresh = 60;
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, watchdog_touch_ts);
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, watchdog_nmi_touch);
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, softlockup_watchdog);
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct hrtimer, watchdog_hrtimer);
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, watchdog_touch_sync);
@@ -147,6 +148,7 @@ void touch_watchdog_sync(void)
void touch_nmi_watchdog(void)
{
+ __get_cpu_var(watchdog_nmi_touch) = true;
touch_watchdog();
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_nmi_watchdog);
@@ -203,11 +205,10 @@ void watchdog_overflow_callback(struct perf_event *event, int nmi,
struct pt_regs *regs)
{
int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
- unsigned long touch_ts = per_cpu(watchdog_touch_ts, this_cpu);
char warn = per_cpu(watchdog_warn, this_cpu);
- if (touch_ts == 0) {
- __touch_watchdog();
+ if (__get_cpu_var(watchdog_nmi_touch) == true) {
+ __get_cpu_var(watchdog_nmi_touch) = false;
return;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-21 21:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-20 15:23 [PATCH 0/6] lockup detector changes Don Zickus
2010-04-20 15:23 ` [PATCH 1/6] [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup Don Zickus
2010-04-20 15:53 ` Randy Dunlap
2010-04-20 16:11 ` Don Zickus
2010-04-21 17:27 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-04-21 17:50 ` Don Zickus
2010-04-21 20:24 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-04-21 20:49 ` Don Zickus
2010-04-20 15:23 ` [PATCH 2/6] [watchdog] convert touch_softlockup_watchdog to touch_watchdog Don Zickus
2010-04-21 20:46 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-04-21 21:31 ` Don Zickus [this message]
2010-04-21 21:46 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-04-22 13:20 ` Don Zickus
2010-04-22 18:53 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-04-20 15:24 ` [PATCH 3/6] [watchdog] remove old softlockup code Don Zickus
2010-04-20 15:24 ` [PATCH 4/6] [watchdog] remove nmi_watchdog.c file Don Zickus
2010-04-20 15:24 ` [PATCH 5/6] [x86] watchdog: move trigger_all_cpu_backtrace to its own die_notifier Don Zickus
2010-04-21 21:00 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-04-21 21:10 ` Don Zickus
2010-04-21 21:34 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-04-20 15:24 ` [PATCH 6/6] [x86] watchdog: cleanup hw_nmi.c cruft Don Zickus
2010-04-20 16:16 ` [PATCH 7/6] [watchdog] resolve softlockup.c conflicts 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=20100421213142.GY15159@redhat.com \
--to=dzickus@redhat.com \
--cc=aris@redhat.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox