public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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;
 	}
 

  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