From: Chai Wen <chaiw.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Cc: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] softlockup: make detector be aware of task switch of processes hogging cpu
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:33:33 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53FD356D.6050507@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140826142214.GN49576@redhat.com>
On 08/26/2014 10:22 PM, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 08:51:30PM +0800, Chai Wen wrote:
>> On 08/22/2014 09:58 AM, Don Zickus wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 01:42:22PM +0800, chai wen wrote:
>>>> For now, soft lockup detector warns once for each case of process softlockup.
>>>> But the thread 'watchdog/n' may not always get the cpu at the time slot between
>>>> the task switch of two processes hogging that cpu to reset soft_watchdog_warn.
>>>>
>>>> An example would be two processes hogging the cpu. Process A causes the
>>>> softlockup warning and is killed manually by a user. Process B immediately
>>>> becomes the new process hogging the cpu preventing the softlockup code from
>>>> resetting the soft_watchdog_warn variable.
>>>>
>>>> This case is a false negative of "warn only once for a process", as there may
>>>> be a different process that is going to hog the cpu. Resolve this by
>>>> saving/checking the task pointer of the hogging process and use that to reset
>>>> soft_watchdog_warn too.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: chai wen <chaiw.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Andrew
>>
>> Sorry for some disturbing.
>> Could you help to check and pick up this little improvement patch ?
>>
>> I am not sure which MAINTAINER I should talk to, but the original version of
>> this patch is queued to -mm tree by you, so I assume that they are in the charge of you.
>>
>>
>> thanks
>> chai wen
>
> Hi Chai,
>
> Sorry about that. Ingo asked me privately to pick this up and re-post
> with my signoff. I was converting to a new test env and was going to use this
> patch as an excuse to exercise it. That is the delay. Let me get this
> out today.
>
OK, It is kind of you to do that, thanks for your work. :)
thanks
chai wen
> Cheers,
> Don
>
>>
>>>> ---
>>>> kernel/watchdog.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>>>> 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
>>>> index 0037db6..2e55620 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
>>>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, softlockup_touch_sync);
>>>> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, soft_watchdog_warn);
>>>> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, hrtimer_interrupts);
>>>> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, soft_lockup_hrtimer_cnt);
>>>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, softlockup_task_ptr_saved);
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
>>>> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, hard_watchdog_warn);
>>>> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, watchdog_nmi_touch);
>>>> @@ -328,8 +329,20 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart watchdog_timer_fn(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
>>>> return HRTIMER_RESTART;
>>>>
>>>> /* only warn once */
>>>> - if (__this_cpu_read(soft_watchdog_warn) == true)
>>>> + if (__this_cpu_read(soft_watchdog_warn) == true) {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Handle the case where multiple processes are
>>>> + * causing softlockups but the duration is small
>>>> + * enough, the softlockup detector can not reset
>>>> + * itself in time. Use task pointers to detect this.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (__this_cpu_read(softlockup_task_ptr_saved) !=
>>>> + current) {
>>>> + __this_cpu_write(soft_watchdog_warn, false);
>>>> + __touch_watchdog();
>>>> + }
>>>> return HRTIMER_RESTART;
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> if (softlockup_all_cpu_backtrace) {
>>>> /* Prevent multiple soft-lockup reports if one cpu is already
>>>> @@ -345,6 +358,7 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart watchdog_timer_fn(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
>>>> pr_emerg("BUG: soft lockup - CPU#%d stuck for %us! [%s:%d]\n",
>>>> smp_processor_id(), duration,
>>>> current->comm, task_pid_nr(current));
>>>> + __this_cpu_write(softlockup_task_ptr_saved, current);
>>>> print_modules();
>>>> print_irqtrace_events(current);
>>>> if (regs)
>>>> --
>>>> 1.7.1
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>>
>> Chai Wen
> .
>
--
Regards
Chai Wen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-27 1:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-11 14:49 [PATCH 0/5] watchdog: various fixes Don Zickus
2014-08-11 14:49 ` [PATCH 1/5] watchdog: remove unnecessary head files Don Zickus
2014-08-18 18:03 ` [tip:perf/watchdog] watchdog: Remove unnecessary header files tip-bot for chai wen
2014-08-11 14:49 ` [PATCH 2/5] softlockup: make detector be aware of task switch of processes hogging cpu Don Zickus
2014-08-18 9:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 15:06 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-18 18:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 18:43 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-18 19:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 20:38 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-19 1:36 ` Chai Wen
2014-08-21 1:37 ` Chai Wen
2014-08-21 2:30 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-21 5:42 ` [PATCH] " chai wen
2014-08-22 1:12 ` Chai Wen
2014-08-22 1:58 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-26 12:51 ` Chai Wen
2014-08-26 14:22 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-27 1:33 ` Chai Wen [this message]
2014-08-11 14:49 ` [PATCH 3/5] watchdog: fix print-once on enable Don Zickus
2014-08-18 9:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 9:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 15:07 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-18 18:03 ` [tip:perf/watchdog] watchdog: Fix " tip-bot for Ulrich Obergfell
2014-08-11 14:49 ` [PATCH 4/5] watchdog: control hard lockup detection default Don Zickus
2014-08-18 9:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 15:07 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-18 9:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 10:44 ` Ulrich Obergfell
2014-08-18 15:17 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-18 18:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-18 18:53 ` Don Zickus
2014-08-18 19:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-11 14:49 ` [PATCH 5/5] kvm: ensure hard lockup detection is disabled by default Don Zickus
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-08-28 4:52 [PATCH] softlockup: Make detector be aware of task switch of processes hogging cpu Don Zickus
2014-08-28 23:07 ` Andrew Morton
2014-08-29 1:27 ` 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=53FD356D.6050507@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=chaiw.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dzickus@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).