[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d33ebade05ea45c2be47717fe1b812b8@baidu.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 07:03:33 +0000
From: "Li,Rongqing" <lirongqing@...du.com>
To: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
CC: "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>, "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"pauld@...hat.com" <pauld@...hat.com>, "joel.granados@...nel.org"
<joel.granados@...nel.org>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"feng.tang@...ux.alibaba.com" <feng.tang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
"kees@...nel.org" <kees@...nel.org>, "mhiramat@...nel.org"
<mhiramat@...nel.org>, "paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com" <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: RE: [外部邮件] Re: [PATCH][v2] hung_task: Panic after fixed number of hung tasks
> On 2025/9/28 13:31, lirongqing wrote:
> > From: Li RongQing <lirongqing@...du.com>
> >
> > Currently, when hung_task_panic is enabled, kernel will panic
> > immediately upon detecting the first hung task. However, some hung
> > tasks are transient and the system can recover fully, while others are
> > unrecoverable and trigger consecutive hung task reports, and a panic is
> expected.
> >
> > This commit adds a new sysctl parameter hung_task_count_to_panic to
> > allows specifying the number of consecutive hung tasks that must be
> > detected before triggering a kernel panic. This provides finer control
> > for environments where transient hangs maybe happen but persistent
> > hangs should still be fatal.
> >
> > Acked-by: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
> > Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <lirongqing@...du.com>
> > ---
>
> It's working as expect. So:
> Tested-by: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
>
> But on second thought: regarding this new sysctl parameter, I was wondering if
> a name like max_hung_task_count_to_panic might be a bit more explicit, just to
> follow the convention from max_rcu_stall_to_panic.
>
I see that all the hung task sysctl parameters start with "hung_task"? Should we keep this convention? If so, we could name it "hung_task_max_to_panic". If not, we could call it "max_hang_task_to_panic"?
-Li
> No strong opinion on this, though :)
>
> Cheers,
> Lance
>
> > Diff with v1: change documentation as Lance suggested
> >
> > Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst | 8 ++++++++
> > kernel/hung_task.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> > 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst
> > b/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst
> > index 8b49eab..98b47a7 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst
> > @@ -405,6 +405,14 @@ This file shows up if
> ``CONFIG_DETECT_HUNG_TASK`` is enabled.
> > 1 Panic immediately.
> > = =================================================
> >
> > +hung_task_count_to_panic
> > +=====================
> > +
> > +When set to a non-zero value, a kernel panic will be triggered if the
> > +number of detected hung tasks reaches this value.
> > +
> > +Note that setting hung_task_panic=1 will still cause an immediate
> > +panic on the first hung task.
> >
> > hung_task_check_count
> > =====================
> > diff --git a/kernel/hung_task.c b/kernel/hung_task.c index
> > 8708a12..87a6421 100644
> > --- a/kernel/hung_task.c
> > +++ b/kernel/hung_task.c
> > @@ -83,6 +83,8 @@ static unsigned int __read_mostly
> sysctl_hung_task_all_cpu_backtrace;
> > static unsigned int __read_mostly sysctl_hung_task_panic =
> > IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_HUNG_TASK_PANIC);
> >
> > +static unsigned int __read_mostly sysctl_hung_task_count_to_panic;
> > +
> > static int
> > hung_task_panic(struct notifier_block *this, unsigned long event, void *ptr)
> > {
> > @@ -219,7 +221,9 @@ static void check_hung_task(struct task_struct *t,
> > unsigned long timeout)
> >
> > trace_sched_process_hang(t);
> >
> > - if (sysctl_hung_task_panic) {
> > + if (sysctl_hung_task_panic ||
> > + (sysctl_hung_task_count_to_panic &&
> > + (sysctl_hung_task_detect_count >=
> > +sysctl_hung_task_count_to_panic))) {
> > console_verbose();
> > hung_task_show_lock = true;
> > hung_task_call_panic = true;
> > @@ -388,6 +392,14 @@ static const struct ctl_table hung_task_sysctls[] = {
> > .extra2 = SYSCTL_ONE,
> > },
> > {
> > + .procname = "hung_task_count_to_panic",
> > + .data = &sysctl_hung_task_count_to_panic,
> > + .maxlen = sizeof(int),
> > + .mode = 0644,
> > + .proc_handler = proc_dointvec_minmax,
> > + .extra1 = SYSCTL_ZERO,
> > + },
> > + {
> > .procname = "hung_task_check_count",
> > .data = &sysctl_hung_task_check_count,
> > .maxlen = sizeof(int),
Powered by blists - more mailing lists