From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754876Ab0HHVrx (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Aug 2010 17:47:53 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:48107 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753535Ab0HHVrw (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Aug 2010 17:47:52 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=VyPKRcPHPxTCYxT9FxyKQ7MRO4v/RiAAlBsklAgH507abVzoe2AvuAp3eow7dYaAd5 qX9HxOCc64qVmcP0bm3B964rUwdsmUqliYNwjWBKe2uVeHdHwrcesd27hVPIL8AbjdYe vdYN6QoSv39ElOUdHo1KU75Op9oRo9eXnyj8k= Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 23:47:47 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Heiko Carstens , Martin Schwidefsky , Linus Torvalds , Li Zefan , LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Don Zickus Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockup_detector: Make DETECT_HUNT_TASK default depend on LOCKUP_DETECTOR Message-ID: <20100808214745.GB5387@nowhere> References: <4C58C7FF.5060906@cn.fujitsu.com> <20100806005801.GB5436@nowhere> <20100807070135.GC23108@elte.hu> <20100808195839.GA5387@nowhere> <20100808212311.GA7194@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100808212311.GA7194@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 11:23:11PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Frederic Weisbecker 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. Yeah, right. > > 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 The unkillable hung task detector remains seperate. May be from the config point of view it could be joined, but from an implementation point of view it has too few to share with the lockup detector: it doesn't need a real time task, nor a timer, etc...