[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5edkgv4slkjkwpufqiuvz45qznxynjs2cb7zrhsyk6ljdhy6r3@v7nmcwdnpt47>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 19:59:49 -0500
From: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>, sean@...e.io,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
joel.granados@...nel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [v6 PATCH 0/2] hung_task: Provide runtime reset interface for
hung task detector
On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 10:46:14AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> I agree that adding the atomic and keeping the old logic is not
> good. I would prefer to split it into two patches the following
> way:
>
> 1. Reshufle the code so that "sysctl_hung_task_detect_count"
> gets incremented in check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()
> and hung_task_info() will just get "this_round_count".
>
> Plus convert "sysctl_hung_task_detect_count" to atomic.
>
> It is the change that I suggested at
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aWTzhLSWQRIGt8Xu@pathway.suse.cz/
>
> This way, it would be clear why the reshufling was done.
> And the atomic operations will get the right acquire/release
> semantic right away.
>
>
> 2. Add support to reset the couter to "0".
>
> It should be a quite simple patch easy to review.
Acknowledged.
> I think that this is how Joel meant it. We could even have 3 patches:
>
> 1. Move "sysctl_hung_task_detect_count" increment to
> check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks().
>
> 2. Convert the counter to atomic operations.
>
> 3. Add reset to "0" support.
>
> But I think that two patches might be good enough.
Understood. I'll sort it out.
Kind regards,
--
Aaron Tomlin
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists