From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: touch_nmi_watchdog should only touch local cpu not every one
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 23:09:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101107220909.GF11134@nowhere> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1288919932-1857-1-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com>
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:18:52PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> I ran into a scenario where while one cpu was stuck and should have panic'd
> because of the NMI watchdog, it didn't. The reason was another cpu was spewing
> stack dumps on to the console. Upon investigation, I noticed that when writing
> to the console and also when dumping the stack, the watchdog is touched.
>
> This causes all the cpus to reset their NMI watchdog flags and the 'stuck' cpu
> just spins forever.
>
> This change causes the semantics of touch_nmi_watchdog to be changed slightly.
> Previously, I accidentally changed the semantics and we noticed there was a
> codepath in which touch_nmi_watchdog could be touched from a preemtible area.
> That caused a BUG() to happen when CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT was enabled. I believe
> it was the acpi code.
>
> My attempt here re-introduces the change to have the touch_nmi_watchdog() code
> only touch the local cpu instead of all of the cpus. But instead of using
> __get_cpu_var(), I use the __raw_get_cpu_var() version.
>
> This avoids the preemption problem. However my reasoning wasn't because I was
> trying to be lazy. Instead I rationalized it as, well if preemption is enabled
> then interrupts should be enabled to and the NMI watchdog will have no reason
> to trigger. So it won't matter if the wrong cpu is touched because the percpu
> interrupt counters the NMI watchdog uses should still be incrementing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
> ---
> kernel/watchdog.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
> index dc8e168..dd0c140 100644
> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
> @@ -141,6 +141,21 @@ void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void)
> #ifdef CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
> void touch_nmi_watchdog(void)
> {
> + /*
> + * Using __raw here because some code paths have
> + * preemption enabled. If preemption is enabled
> + * then interrupts should be enabled too, in which
> + * case we shouldn't have to worry about the watchdog
> + * going off.
> + */
> + __raw_get_cpu_var(watchdog_nmi_touch) = true;
> +
> + touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_nmi_watchdog);
Did the old watchdog also touched every CPUs?
That doesn't appear to be a good thing, we may indeed miss hardlockups
because of that.
And it seems you can drop touch_all_nmi_watchdogs() as, like others
pointed out, there are no users of it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-07 22:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-05 1:18 [PATCH] watchdog: touch_nmi_watchdog should only touch local cpu not every one Don Zickus
2010-11-05 13:51 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-11-05 19:58 ` Andrew Morton
2010-11-08 13:37 ` Don Zickus
2010-11-07 22:09 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2010-11-08 13:38 ` Don Zickus
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-12-05 3:12 [PATCH v2] watchdog: Add a sysctl to disable soft lockup detector Don Zickus
2013-12-05 20:42 ` [PATCH] watchdog: touch_nmi_watchdog should only touch local cpu not every one Ben Zhang
2013-12-16 15:55 ` 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=20101107220909.GF11134@nowhere \
--to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dzickus@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.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