From: Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:19:26 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1686084684.35307565.1449235166196.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151203205449.GL27463@mtj.duckdns.org>
Tejun,
> Sure, separating the knobs out isn't difficult. I still don't like
> the idea of having multiple set of similar knobs controlling about the
> same thing tho.
>
> For example, let's say there's a user who boots with "nosoftlockup"
> explicitly. I'm pretty sure the user wouldn't be intending to keep
> workqueue watchdog running. The same goes for threshold adjustments,
> so here's my question. What are the reasons for the concern? What
> are we worrying about?
I'm not sure if it is obvious to a user that a stall of workqueues is
"about the same thing" as a soft lockup, and that one could thus argue
that both should be controlled by the same knob. Looking at this from
perspective of usability, I would still vote for having separate knobs
for each lockup detector. For example
/proc/sys/kernel/wq_watchdog_thresh
could control the on|off state of the workqueue watchdog and the timeout
at the same time (0 means off, > 0 means on and specifies the timeout).
Separating wq_watchdog_thresh from watchdog_thresh might also be useful
for diagnostic purposes for example, if during the investigation of a
problem one would want to explicitly increase or lower one threshold
without impacting the other.
>> And another question that comes to my mind is: Would the workqueue watchdog
>> participate in the lockup detector suspend/resume mechanism, and if yes, how
>> would it be integrated into this ?
>
> From the usage, I can't quite tell what the purpose of the mechanism
> is. The only user seems to be fixup_ht_bug() and when it fails it
> says "failed to disable PMU erratum BJ122, BV98, HSD29 workaround" so
> if you could give me a pointer, it'd be great. But at any rate, if
> shutting down watchdog is all that's necessary, it shouldn't be a
> problem to integrate.
The patch post that introduced the mechanism is here:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=143843318208917&w=2
The watchdog_{suspend|resume} functions were later renamed:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=143894132129982&w=2
At the moment I don't see a reason why the workqueue watchdog would have to
participate in that mechanism. However, if the workqueue watchdog would be
connected to the soft lockup detector as you proposed, I think it should be
participating for the 'sake of consistency' (it would seem hard to under-
stand if the interface would only suspend parts of the lockup detector).
Regards,
Uli
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-04 13:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-03 0:28 [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: introduce touch_softlockup_watchdog_sched() Tejun Heo
2015-12-03 0:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector Tejun Heo
2015-12-03 14:49 ` Tejun Heo
2015-12-03 17:50 ` Don Zickus
2015-12-03 19:43 ` Tejun Heo
2015-12-03 20:12 ` Ulrich Obergfell
2015-12-03 20:54 ` Tejun Heo
2015-12-04 8:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-12-04 16:52 ` Don Zickus
2015-12-04 13:19 ` Ulrich Obergfell [this message]
2015-12-07 19:06 ` [PATCH v2 " Tejun Heo
2015-12-07 21:38 ` Don Zickus
2015-12-07 21:39 ` Tejun Heo
2015-12-08 16:00 ` Don Zickus
2015-12-08 16:31 ` Tejun Heo
2015-12-03 9:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: introduce touch_softlockup_watchdog_sched() Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-03 10:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-03 14:48 ` Tejun Heo
2015-12-03 15:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-03 15:06 ` Tejun Heo
2015-12-03 19:26 ` [PATCH] workqueue: warn if memory reclaim tries to flush !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue Tejun Heo
2015-12-03 20:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-03 20:56 ` Tejun Heo
2015-12-03 21:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-03 22:04 ` Tejun Heo
2015-12-04 12:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-07 15:58 ` Tejun Heo
2016-01-26 17:38 ` Thierry Reding
2016-01-28 10:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-28 12:47 ` Thierry Reding
2016-01-28 12:48 ` Thierry Reding
2016-01-29 11:09 ` Tejun Heo
2016-01-29 15:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-29 18:28 ` Tejun Heo
2016-01-29 10:59 ` [PATCH wq/for-4.5-fixes] workqueue: skip flush dependency checks for legacy workqueues Tejun Heo
2016-01-29 15:07 ` Thierry Reding
2016-01-29 18:32 ` Tejun Heo
2016-02-02 6:54 ` Archit Taneja
2016-03-10 15:12 ` [PATCH] workqueue: warn if memory reclaim tries to flush !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue Adrian Hunter
2016-03-11 17:52 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1686084684.35307565.1449235166196.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com \
--to=uobergfe@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dzickus@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).