[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <vwzd7i5us7ahsdyk5zb6qfv2ggsqt3oeemlbhakre5jfwjfi3h@ehbdznirzg7h>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2026 16:01:43 -0500
From: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>, neelx@...e.com, sean@...e.io,
mhiramat@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, joel.granados@...nel.org,
mproche@...il.com, chjohnst@...il.com, nick.lange@...il.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hung_task: Skip scan on idle systems
On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 02:55:41PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> It makes some sense. And the check of the average load is trivial
> so it might be acceptable.
>
> But I somehow doubt that it works. Have you ever seen a system with
> (avenrun[0] == 0)? IMHO, it might be pretty hard to achieve it.
> Or maybe I am too pessimistic. Or are there embedded systems which can
> only be waken by some interrupt from a sensor? Do embedded systems
> run hung task detector?
>
> By other words. Is this patch solving a theoretical scenario?
> Did you test it in practice, please?
>
> Best Regards,
Hi Petr,
You are entirely correct; this was a purely theoretical proposition.
I have not validated this against a production workload to quantify any
potential savings. Achieving a load average of exactly zero is elusive in
practice on modern systems, rendering the optimisation likely ineffective.
Please consider this patch withdrawn.
Best regards,
--
Aaron Tomlin
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists