From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockup_detector: Make DETECT_HUNT_TASK default depend on LOCKUP_DETECTOR
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 23:23:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100808212311.GA7194@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100808195839.GA5387@nowhere>
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The thing is, CONFIG_DETECT_SOFTLOCKUP was default-y before, so many
> > people had it enabled [and had it forced-enabled if DEBUG_KERNEL was off],
> > even if they didnt really want or need it.
>
> Hmm. It was:
>
> config DETECT_SOFTLOCKUP
> bool "Detect Soft Lockups"
> depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && !S390
> default y
>
> It means it's default enabled only if DEBUG_KERNEL, right? Then if you don't
> select CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL, it's fine as it won't be selected.
Indeed, you are right.
Anyway, i think the general point remains: i'm not sure we should
default-enable this feature.
> But I agree with you. There is a bunch of config options for which selection
> is a duty when you are a kernel developer: PROVE_LOCKING, DETECT_HUNG_TASK,
> DEBUG_PREEMPT, PROVE_RCU, etc... Because they all show (or prove we can
> have) bugs that one might miss without these options. Softlockups are rarely
> part of them because even without the lockup detector enabled, you'll
> observe something is wrong.
Note that it's now detecting all kinds of lockups: softlockups, hard lockups
and even unkillable hung tasks.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-08 21:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-04 1:53 [PATCH] lockup_detector: Make DETECT_HUNT_TASK default depend on LOCKUP_DETECTOR Li Zefan
2010-08-06 0:58 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-08-07 7:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-08-08 19:58 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-08-08 21:23 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2010-08-08 21:47 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-08-09 8:07 ` Heiko Carstens
2010-08-09 13:49 ` Don Zickus
2010-08-09 14:21 ` Heiko Carstens
2010-08-17 6:03 ` Li Zefan
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=20100808212311.GA7194@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=dzickus@redhat.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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