[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <qjb4hq27dtnr4g2tocefrjfxd4zc6apb3nshagbwdadpzvz6y6@s4dxm46yih3y>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 16:00:13 -0500
From: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>
To: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, sean@...e.io,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] hung_task: Enable runtime reset of
hung_task_detect_count
On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 10:15:14PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> Clever! If it's a real persistent hang, we'll catch it next
> time anyway.
>
> But yeah, add a comment explaining that we're ok with
> undercounting one scan if counter gets reset mid-flight.
>
> Future readers will thank you ;)
Hi Petr, Lance,
Thank you for the feedback.
> > It should be acceptable. The panic() is needed when the lockup looks
> > permanent. And if the lockup is permanent then the right
> > total_hung_task number will be computed by the next check.
> >
> > Please, add a comment into the code explaining why it is done this way
> > and why it is OK.
Acknowledged.
> Right, memory ordering matters!
Agreed.
> Explicit is better. Echo 0 to reset, anything else is an error :)
Acknowledged.
> Yeah, I think this is the way to go. Much better than adding a
> lock to hung task detector ...
Agreed.
I will prepare a new series.
Kind regards,
--
Aaron Tomlin
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists