| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <9dd0bfd0-19e7-607a-0d75-567cdfa6ab86@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 19:41:09 +0800
From: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
To: "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>
CC: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: Fix htmldocs build warnings of stallwarn.rst
On 2022/11/23 17:12, 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.
>
> In addition, ':', which is used as a boundary in the literal block, is
> replaced by '|'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
> ---
> Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst | 44 ++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst
> index c1e92dfef40d501..0f6a58ebf5d7855 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst
> @@ -398,9 +398,9 @@ In kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_CPUTIME=y or booted with
> rcupdate.rcu_cpu_stall_cputime=1, the following additional information
> is supplied with each RCU CPU stall warning::
>
> -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)
>
> These statistics are collected during the sampling period. The values
> in row "number:" are the number of hard interrupts, number of soft
> @@ -412,22 +412,22 @@ in milliseconds. Because user-mode tasks normally do not cause RCU CPU
> stalls, these tasks are typically kernel tasks, which is why only the
> system CPU time are considered.
>
> -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 following describes four typical scenarios:
>
> 1. A CPU looping with interrupts disabled.::
>
Wait, a space is need to be added before "::", otherwise, only one colon
will be removed from the output. And in this way, other paragraphs after
literal block are also displayed in red when using vim to edit stallwarn.rst.
So it would be better to use expanded form.
I will post v2.
> - 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.
> @@ -442,9 +442,9 @@ The following describes four typical scenarios:
> and CPU time consumed by hard interrupts, along with non-zero CPU
> 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
> @@ -456,18 +456,18 @@ The following describes four typical scenarios:
>
> 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.::
>
> - 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
>
--
Regards,
Zhen Lei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists