[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YuqtDA4NY/8Z22aK@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 19:14:52 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Liu Song <liusong@...ux.alibaba.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com,
vschneid@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/debug: avoid executing show_state and causing rcu
stall warning
* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> There is an rcu_sysrq_start() and rcu_sysrq_end() to suppress this.
> These are invoked by __handle_sysrq(). The value of
> rcu_cpu_stall_suppress should be non-zero during the sysrq execution, and
> this should prevent RCU CPU stall warnings from being printed.
>
> That said, the code currently does not support overlapping calls to the
> various functions that suppress RCU CPU stall warnings. Except that the
> only other use in current mainline is rcu_panic(), which never
> unsuppresses.
>
> So could you please check the value of rcu_cpu_stall_suppress? Just in
> case some other form of suppression was added somewhere that I missed?
So instead of supressing the (justified!) RCU stall messages, I'd much
rather we apply only the minimal locking necessary for this debug printout.
That should also solve the stall warnings as a side effect.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists