[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3f08b8cf-a1dc-4d83-0de2-94203dff9a4c@gnuweeb.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 05:08:29 +0700
From: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: Add per-CPU rcuc task info to RCU CPU stall
warnings
On 1/24/22 11:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 05:38:21PM +0700, Ammar Faizi wrote:
>> [snip...]
>> FWIW, this one makes more sense:
>> ```
>> static void rcuc_kthread_dump(struct rcu_data *rdp)
>> {
>> int cpu;
>> unsigned long j;
>> struct task_struct *rcuc;
>>
>> if (!rcu_is_rcuc_kthread_starving(rdp, &j))
>> return;
>>
>> rcuc = rdp->rcu_cpu_kthread_task;
>> if (!rcuc)
>> return;
>>
>> pr_err("%s kthread starved for %ld jiffies, stack dump:\n", rcuc->comm, j);
>
> Thank you for looking this over and for the great feedback, Ammar!
>
> I am also wondering why the above message should be printed when the
> corresponding CPU is offline or idle. Why not move the above pr_err()
> line down to replace the pr_err() line below?
>
> Thanx, Paul
Hi Paul, Thank you for the review. Agree with that.
Hopefully this one looks better (untested):
```
static void rcuc_kthread_dump(struct rcu_data *rdp)
{
int cpu;
unsigned long j;
struct task_struct *rcuc;
rcuc = rdp->rcu_cpu_kthread_task;
if (!rcuc)
return;
cpu = task_cpu(rcuc);
if (cpu_is_offline(cpu) || idle_cpu(cpu))
return;
if (!rcu_is_rcuc_kthread_starving(rdp, &j))
return;
pr_err("%s kthread starved for %ld jiffies\n", rcuc->comm, j);
sched_show_task(rcuc);
if (!trigger_single_cpu_backtrace(cpu))
dump_cpu_task(cpu);
}
```
Recall that dump_cpu_task looks like this:
```
void dump_cpu_task(int cpu)
{
pr_info("Task dump for CPU %d:\n", cpu);
sched_show_task(cpu_curr(cpu));
}
```
which already tells us it's a dump, so "stack dump" in the pr_err()
can be omitted. Any comment, Zqiang?
--
Ammar Faizi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists