Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1283618
| From | Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector |
| Date | 2015-12-04 09:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qBTBf-7g-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <qBpWy-61l-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qBGkG-8hM-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qBI38-Xe-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <qBIwa-1o5-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <qBJ8U-1Cs-77@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
* Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, Ulrich. > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 03:12:20PM -0500, Ulrich Obergfell wrote: > > I share Don's concern about connecting the soft lockup detector and the > > workqueue watchdog to the same kernel parameter in /proc. I would feel > > more comfortable if the workqueue watchdog had its dedicated parameter. > > 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? As Don mentioned it already, we went through similar arguments (and pain) with the hard/soft lockup detectors and its various control knobs, it would be better to have new control knobs separated. As for the ease of use argument, we can add a new, obviously named control knob that controls _all_ lockup detectors: boot param: nolockupdetectors matching Kconfig knob: CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_NO_LOCKUP_DETECTORS=0 but please don't artificially couple the control knobs of these various lockup detectors, as these internal assumptions are less than obvious to users. With (effectively) 4 lockup detectors such coupling of interfaces is even more confusing and damaging. but ease of use is not a big concern in any case, since new debug features are disabled by default, so only those people will see it (and may want to disable it via a boot parameter, hopefully only temporarily) who enable it intentionally. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 1/2] watchdog: introduce touch_softlockup_watchdog_sched() Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-12-03 01:30 +0100
[PATCH 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-12-03 01:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-12-03 15:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> - 2015-12-03 19:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-12-03 20:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@redhat.com> - 2015-12-03 21:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-12-03 22:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2015-12-04 09:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> - 2015-12-04 18:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@redhat.com> - 2015-12-04 14:30 +0100
[PATCH v2 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-12-07 20:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-12-07 22:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> - 2015-12-08 17:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-12-08 17:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> - 2015-12-07 22:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: introduce touch_softlockup_watchdog_sched() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-03 10:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: introduce touch_softlockup_watchdog_sched() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-03 11:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: introduce touch_softlockup_watchdog_sched() Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-12-03 15:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: introduce touch_softlockup_watchdog_sched() Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-12-03 16:10 +0100
[PATCH] workqueue: warn if memory reclaim tries to flush !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-12-03 20:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] workqueue: warn if memory reclaim tries to flush !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-03 21:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] workqueue: warn if memory reclaim tries to flush !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-12-03 22:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] workqueue: warn if memory reclaim tries to flush !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-03 22:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] workqueue: warn if memory reclaim tries to flush !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-12-03 23:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] workqueue: warn if memory reclaim tries to flush !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-04 14:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] workqueue: warn if memory reclaim tries to flush !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-12-07 17:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: introduce touch_softlockup_watchdog_sched() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-03 16:10 +0100
csiph-web