lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] hung_task: Allow printing warnings every check interval
From
Date
On 7/26/19 2:28 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/07/26 20:29, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2019/07/25 23:25, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>>> Yes, also current distributions already using the counter to print
>>> warnings number of times and then silently ignore. I.e., on my Arch
>>> Linux setup:
>>> hung_task_warnings:10
>>
>> You can propose changing the default value of hung_task_warnings to -1.
>>
>> Current patch might be inconvenient because printk() from hung_task_warning(t, false)
>> fails to go to consoles when that "t" was blocked for more than "timeout" seconds, for
>>
>> if (sysctl_hung_task_panic) {
>> console_verbose();
>> hung_task_show_lock = true;
>> hung_task_call_panic = true;
>> }
>>
>> path which is intended to force printk() to go to consoles is ignored by
>>
>> /* Don't print warings twice */
>> if (!sysctl_hung_task_interval_warnings)
>> hung_task_warning(t, true);
>>
>> when panic() should be called. (The vmcore would contain the printk() output which
>> was not sent to consoles if kdump is configured. But vmcore is not always available.)

Fair enough.

>>> Yes, that's why it's disabled by default (=0).
>>> I tend to agree that printing with KERN_DEBUG may be better, but in my
>>> point of view the patch isn't enough justification for patching
>>> sched_show_task() and show_stack().
>>
>> You can propose sched_show_task_log_lvl() and show_stack_log_lvl() like show_trace_log_lvl().

I'll try, not sure how well it will go..

>>
>> I think that sysctl_hung_task_interval_warnings should not be decremented automatically.
>> I guess that that variable should become a boolean which controls whether to report threads
>> (with KERN_DEBUG level) which was blocked for more than sysctl_hung_task_check_interval_secs
>> seconds (or a tristate which also controls whether the report should be sent to consoles
>> (because KERN_DEBUG level likely prevents sending to consoles)), and
>> hung_task_warning(t, false) should be called like
>>
>> if (time_is_after_jiffies(t->last_switch_time + timeout * HZ)) {
>> if (sysctl_hung_task_interval_warnings)
>> hung_task_warning(t, false);
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> rather than
>>
>> if (sysctl_hung_task_interval_warnings)
>> hung_task_warning(t, false);
>> if (time_is_after_jiffies(t->last_switch_time + timeout * HZ))
>> return;

Good point, will do.

> Well, another direction is to disassociate sysctl_hung_task_panic from
> sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs. Since nobody would want to call panic() when
> a thread was blocked for only one second, allow sysctl_hung_task_panic to
> specify larger than 1, and interpret it as sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs for
> calling panic(). Roughly speaking:
>
> - if (sysctl_hung_task_panic) {
> + unsigned long panic_timeout = READ_ONCE(sysctl_hung_task_panic)
> + if (panic_timeout == 1 || (panic_timeout > 1 &&
> + (jiffies - t->last_switch_time) / HZ >= panic_timeout)) {
> console_verbose();
> hung_task_show_lock = true;
> hung_task_call_panic = true;
> }
>
> If use of different loglevel is not a requirement for you, this would be the simplest.

No, we consider such messages as notifications/warnings, rather than
complete failures. So, it would be better to hide them from console.
They're also not rate-limited which is a bummer with slow serial
consoles that we've on some devices (9600).

Thanks for the review,
Dmitry

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-26 15:59    [W:0.048 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site