Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:40:38 +0200 | From | Petr Mladek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] watchdog/softlockup: Report the same softlockup regularly |
| |
On Mon 2019-10-21 14:43:39, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:47:31PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > Softlockup report means that there is no progress on the given CPU. It > > might be a "short" affair where the system gets recovered. But often > > the system stops being responsive and need to get rebooted. > > > > The softlockup might be root of the problems or just a symptom. It might > > be a deadlock, livelock, or often repeated state. > > > > Regular reports help to distinguish different situations. Fortunately, > > the watchdog is finally able to show correct information how long > > softlockup_fn() was not scheduled. > > > > Report before this patch: > > > > [ 320.248948] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 26s! [cat:4916] > > > > And after this patch: > > > > [ 480.372418] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 26s! [cat:4943] > > [ 508.372359] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 52s! [cat:4943] > > [ 548.372359] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 89s! [cat:4943] > > [ 576.372351] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 115s! [cat:4943] > > > > Note that the horrible code never really worked before the accounting > > was fixed. The last working timestamp was regularly lost by the many > > touch*watchdog() calls. > > So what's the point of patch 1? Just confusing people?
I was not sure what was the expected behavior. The code actually looked like only the first report was wanted. But it probably never worked that way.
Should I squash the two patches and send it again, please?
Best Regards, Petr
| |