[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b9156bde-137c-2fac-19e0-b205ab4d6016@quicinc.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 23:52:41 -0800
From: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: <johannes@...solutions.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<rafael@...nel.org>, <robdclark@...il.com>,
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
<freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
<swboyd@...omium.org>, <nganji@...eaurora.org>,
<aravindh@...eaurora.org>, <khsieh@...eaurora.org>,
<daniel@...ll.ch>, <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] devcoredump: increase the device delete timeout to 10
mins
Hi Greg
On 2/11/2022 11:04 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 10:59:39AM -0800, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>> Hi Greg
>>
>> Thanks for the response.
>>
>> On 2/11/2022 3:09 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 11:44:32AM -0800, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>>>> There are cases where depending on the size of the devcoredump and the speed
>>>> at which the usermode reads the dump, it can take longer than the current 5 mins
>>>> timeout.
>>>>
>>>> This can lead to incomplete dumps as the device is deleted once the timeout expires.
>>>>
>>>> One example is below where it took 6 mins for the devcoredump to be completely read.
>>>>
>>>> 04:22:24.668 23916 23994 I HWDeviceDRM::DumpDebugData: Opening /sys/class/devcoredump/devcd6/data
>>>> 04:28:35.377 23916 23994 W HWDeviceDRM::DumpDebugData: Freeing devcoredump node
>>>
>>> What makes this so slow? Reading from the kernel shouldn't be the
>>> limit, is it where the data is being sent to?
>>
>> We are still checking this. We are seeing better read times when we bump up
>> the thread priority of the thread which was reading this.
>
> Where is the thread sending the data to?
The thread is writing the data to a file in local storage. From our
profiling, the read is the one taking the time not the write.
>
>> We are also trying to check if bumping up CPU speed is helping.
>> But, results have not been consistently good enough. So we thought we should
>> also increase the timeout to be safe.
>
> Why would 10 minutes be better than 30? What should the limit be? :)
Again, this is from our profiling. We are seeing a worst case time of 7
mins to finish the read for our data. Thats where the 10mins came from.
Just doubling what we have currently. I am not sure how the current 5
mins timeout came from.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists