[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b7937a55047b44c687e11e219a62009e@baidu.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 02:04:21 +0000
From: "Li,Rongqing" <lirongqing@...du.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
CC: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>, "wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com"
<wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "Liam R . Howlett"
<Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, "Randy
Dunlap" <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
"linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>, "Andrew
Jeffery" <andrew@...econstruct.com.au>, Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
"Russell King" <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Lorenzo Stoakes
<lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt
<rostedt@...dmis.org>, "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>, Joel Granados
<joel.granados@...nel.org>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Phil
Auld <pauld@...hat.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, "Masami Hiramatsu" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "Pawan Gupta"
<pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>, Florian Westphal
<fw@...len.de>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Kees Cook
<kees@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, "Paul E . McKenney"
<paulmck@...nel.org>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@...ux.alibaba.com>, "Jason A .
Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Subject: RE: [????] Re: [????] Re: [PATCH][v3] hung_task: Panic after fixed
number of hung tasks
> I would also update the subject to something like:
>
> hung_task: Panic when there are more than N hung tasks at the same
> time
>
Ok, I will update
>
>
> That said, I think that both approaches make sense.
>
> Your approach would trigger the panic when many processes are stuck.
> Note that it still might be a transient state. But I agree that the more stuck
> processes exist the more serious the problem likely is for the heath of the
> system.
>
> My approach would trigger panic when a single process hangs for a long
> time. It will trigger more likely only when the problem is persistent. The
> seriousness depends on which particular process get stuck.
>
Yes, both are reasonable requirement, and I will leave it to you or anyone else interested to implement it
Thanks
-Li.
> I am fine with your approach. Just please, make more clear that the number
> means the number of hung tasks at the same time.
> And mention the problems to login, ...
>
> Best Regards,
> Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists