[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y34mIhHYjFFzywsk@debian.me>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 20:54:42 +0700
From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
To: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] doc: Fix htmldocs build warnings of stallwarn.rst
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 08:02:38PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst:
> 401: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
> 428: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
> 445: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
> 459: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
> 468: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
>
> The literal block need to be indented, so add two spaces to each line.
Indenting to match alignment of lists texts?
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
You miss crediting linux-next list, so please add:
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20221123163255.48653674@canb.auug.org.au/
Fixes: 3d2788ba4573 ("doc: Document CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_CPUTIME=y stall information")
Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> -The sampling period is shown as follows:
> -:<------------first timeout---------->:<-----second timeout----->:
> -:<--half timeout-->:<--half timeout-->: :
> -: :<--first period-->: :
> -: :<-----------second sampling period---------->:
> -: : : :
> -: snapshot time point 1st-stall 2nd-stall
> +The sampling period is shown as follows::
>
> + |<------------first timeout---------->|<-----second timeout----->|
> + |<--half timeout-->|<--half timeout-->| |
> + | |<--first period-->| |
> + | |<-----------second sampling period---------->|
> + | | | |
> + | snapshot time point 1st-stall 2nd-stall
The beginning pipe (|) on the last line of diagram above shouldn't be there
(axis label?).
>
> The following describes four typical scenarios:
>
> -1. A CPU looping with interrupts disabled.::
> +1. A CPU looping with interrupts disabled.
>
> - rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system
> - rcu: number: 0 0 0
> - rcu: cputime: 0 0 0 ==> 2500(ms)
> + ::
> +
> + rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system
> + rcu: number: 0 0 0
> + rcu: cputime: 0 0 0 ==> 2500(ms)
>
> Because interrupts have been disabled throughout the measurement
> interval, there are no interrupts and no context switches.
> @@ -440,11 +442,11 @@ The following describes four typical scenarios:
>
> This is similar to the previous example, but with non-zero number of
> and CPU time consumed by hard interrupts, along with non-zero CPU
> - time consumed by in-kernel execution.::
> + time consumed by in-kernel execution. ::
>
> - rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system
> - rcu: number: 624 0 0
> - rcu: cputime: 49 0 2446 ==> 2500(ms)
> + rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system
> + rcu: number: 624 0 0
> + rcu: cputime: 49 0 2446 ==> 2500(ms)
>
> The fact that there are zero softirqs gives a hint that these were
> disabled, perhaps via local_bh_disable(). It is of course possible
> @@ -454,20 +456,22 @@ The following describes four typical scenarios:
>
> 3. A CPU looping with preemption disabled.
>
> - Here, only the number of context switches is zero.::
> + Here, only the number of context switches is zero. ::
>
> - rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system
> - rcu: number: 624 45 0
> - rcu: cputime: 69 1 2425 ==> 2500(ms)
> + rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system
> + rcu: number: 624 45 0
> + rcu: cputime: 69 1 2425 ==> 2500(ms)
>
> This situation hints that the stalled CPU was looping with preemption
> disabled.
>
> -4. No looping, but massive hard and soft interrupts.::
> +4. No looping, but massive hard and soft interrupts.
> +
> + ::
>
> - rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system
> - rcu: number: xx xx 0
> - rcu: cputime: xx xx 0 ==> 2500(ms)
> + rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system
> + rcu: number: xx xx 0
> + rcu: cputime: xx xx 0 ==> 2500(ms)
>
> Here, the number and CPU time of hard interrupts are all non-zero,
> but the number of context switches and the in-kernel CPU time consumed
>
Because paragraphs below the snippets directly refers to them,just use colon:
---- >8 ----
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst
index f15b766d39b8d9..4f6b91be03cfe0 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst
@@ -423,9 +423,7 @@ The sampling period is shown as follows::
The following describes four typical scenarios:
-1. A CPU looping with interrupts disabled.
-
- ::
+1. A CPU looping with interrupts disabled::
rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system
rcu: number: 0 0 0
@@ -442,7 +440,7 @@ The following describes four typical scenarios:
This is similar to the previous example, but with non-zero number of
and CPU time consumed by hard interrupts, along with non-zero CPU
- time consumed by in-kernel execution. ::
+ time consumed by in-kernel execution::
rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system
rcu: number: 624 0 0
@@ -456,7 +454,7 @@ The following describes four typical scenarios:
3. A CPU looping with preemption disabled.
- Here, only the number of context switches is zero. ::
+ Here, only the number of context switches is zero::
rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system
rcu: number: 624 45 0
@@ -465,9 +463,7 @@ The following describes four typical scenarios:
This situation hints that the stalled CPU was looping with preemption
disabled.
-4. No looping, but massive hard and soft interrupts.
-
- ::
+4. No looping, but massive hard and soft interrupts::
rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system
rcu: number: xx xx 0
Thanks.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists