linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] hung_task: Add detection count to hung task warning message

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3ecb6ed2-dda8-4557-98aa-52de81c47b6d@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:24:33 +0800
From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ye Liu <ye.liu@...ux.dev>
Cc: Ye Liu <liuye@...inos.cn>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hung_task: Add detection count to hung task warning
 message



On 2025/7/25 06:10, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:06:52 +0800 Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 2025/7/24 15:23, Ye Liu wrote:
>>> From: Ye Liu <liuye@...inos.cn>
>>>
>>> Add [#N] to hung task warnings to show occurrence count.
>>> This helps quickly identify warning order when multiple
>>> messages appear in logs.
>>
>> Hmm... once we have this number, what do we do with it?
> 
> Yes, adding to the changelog a more comprehensive description of the
> use-cases would help get this patch into Linux.

Yep, exactly. Please sell this change to us! A good changelog should
explain not just what the patch does, but why it's necessary ;p

> 
>> While I totally get the desire for a quick reference number, my thinking
>> is that the hung_task_detect_count counter is the intended and more
>> reliable way for users to check.
> 
> But that's what this patch does?  Confused.

I'm just not sure if this quick reference number is something users
actually need, as there doesn't seem to be a strong use-case for it yet.

My point was that actively checking the sysctl is the proper way to get the
total count. But of course, if users genuinely need this inline number, I
have no objection ;)

> 
>> But like I said before, let's see what Andrew thinks ;)
> 
> Andrew thinks it's a pain when the title of a patch is changed!
> Fortunately the changelog had a "Link to v1".

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250721031755.1418556-1-ye.liu@linux.dev/

Thanks,
Lance