[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151204165204.GB70558@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:52:04 -0500
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 09:02:26AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Ulrich.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 03:12:20PM -0500, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
> > > I share Don's concern about connecting the soft lockup detector and the
> > > workqueue watchdog to the same kernel parameter in /proc. I would feel
> > > more comfortable if the workqueue watchdog had its dedicated parameter.
> >
> > Sure, separating the knobs out isn't difficult. I still don't like
> > the idea of having multiple set of similar knobs controlling about the
> > same thing tho.
> >
> > For example, let's say there's a user who boots with "nosoftlockup"
> > explicitly. I'm pretty sure the user wouldn't be intending to keep
> > workqueue watchdog running. The same goes for threshold adjustments,
> > so here's my question. What are the reasons for the concern? What
> > are we worrying about?
>
> As Don mentioned it already, we went through similar arguments (and pain) with the
> hard/soft lockup detectors and its various control knobs, it would be better to
> have new control knobs separated.
>
> As for the ease of use argument, we can add a new, obviously named control knob
> that controls _all_ lockup detectors:
>
> boot param: nolockupdetectors
> matching Kconfig knob: CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_NO_LOCKUP_DETECTORS=0
>
> but please don't artificially couple the control knobs of these various lockup
> detectors, as these internal assumptions are less than obvious to users. With
> (effectively) 4 lockup detectors such coupling of interfaces is even more
> confusing and damaging.
It might be worth tying them together with a generic knob and expanding the
bit mask for the 'watchdog' variable. I can't figure out an easy way to do
that right now.
I don't think we want to go down the route of 'registering' detectors yet.
:-)
Cheers,
Don
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists