[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27240C0AC20F114CBF8149A2696CBE4A6015B695@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:53:51 +0000
From: "Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
CC: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com" <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"dvyukov@...gle.com" <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] kernel/hung_task.c: force ignore_loglevel before panic
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Petr Mladek [mailto:pmladek@...e.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 6:18 PM
> To: Liu, Chuansheng <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
> Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>; Sergey Senozhatsky
> <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>; akpm@...ux-foundation.org;
> sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com; rostedt@...dmis.org; dvyukov@...gle.com;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/hung_task.c: force ignore_loglevel before panic
>
> On Wed 2018-12-12 01:16:11, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tetsuo Handa [mailto:penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 6:02 PM
> > > To: Liu, Chuansheng <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>; Sergey Senozhatsky
> > > <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
> > > Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org; pmladek@...e.com;
> > > sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com; rostedt@...dmis.org;
> dvyukov@...gle.com;
> > > linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/hung_task.c: force ignore_loglevel before panic
> > >
> > > On 2018/12/11 10:16, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > > > We may enhance it by:
> > > > - if (sysctl_hung_task_warnings) {
> > > > + if (sysctl_hung_task_panic || sysctl_hung_task_warnings) {
> > > > if (sysctl_hung_task_warnings > 0)
> > > > sysctl_hung_task_warnings--;
> > >
> > > Why ignore sysctl_hung_task_warnings? The administrator can already
> > > configure as sysctl_hung_task_warnings == -1 && sysctl_hung_task_panic
> == 1
> > > if he/she does not want to suppress neither sched_show_task() nor
> > > debug_show_all_locks()/trigger_all_cpu_backtrace(). Someone might want
> that
> > > sysctl_hung_task_warnings == 0 (which is a request to suppress only
> > > sched_show_task()) should not be ignored by sysctl_hung_task_panic == 1
> > > (which is a request to trigger panic).
> >
> >
> > My complete idea is in patch V1 which has been sent. Paste here:
> > If sysctl_hung_task_panic == 1, I will force sched_show_task(t) and set
> > hung_task_call_panic = true
> > hung_task_show_lock = true
>
> Please, do not mix two changes into one patch.
Thanks your suggestion.
>
> Add console_verbose() in one patch. It is simple and
> everyone has agreed with it so far.
Has sent it out, please help review.
>
> Force sched_show_task() when hung_task_call_panic == 1 in
> another patch. It seems to be controversial and should be
> discussed/changed separately.
I found some other points also, and will send out patches later.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists