[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f6ba97307fc7e661acfd54c7c0701896b9ab2119.camel@surriel.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 20:59:11 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
leobras@...hat.com, imran.f.khan@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] locking/csd-lock: Use backoff for repeated reports
of same incident
On Sat, 2024-07-13 at 22:28 +0530, neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
>
> Currently, the CSD-lock diagnostics in CONFIG_CSD_LOCK_WAIT_DEBUG=y
> kernels are emitted at five-second intervals. Although this has
> proven
> to be a good time interval for the first diagnostic, if the target
> CPU
> keeps interrupts disabled for way longer than five seconds, the ratio
> of useful new information to pointless repetition increases
> considerably.
>
> Therefore, back off the time period for repeated reports of the same
> incident, increasing linearly with the number of reports and
> logarithmicly
> with the number of online CPUs.
>
> [ paulmck: Apply Dan Carpenter feedback. ]
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> Cc: Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@...cle.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>
> Cc: "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
--
All Rights Reversed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists