Re: perf overlapping maps...

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 06:16:13PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:07:38AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > (adding Jiri) > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 09:44:01PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > > From: David Miller > > > Dat

Re: perf overlapping maps...

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 06:16:13PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:07:38AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > (adding Jiri) > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 09:44:01PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > > From: David Miller > > > Dat

Re: perf overlapping maps...

>header->misc. > > > > 2) Use this to elide the map groups clone in > >thread__clone_map_groups(). > > Looking into code history, I notice: > > commit 363b785f3805a2632eb09a8b430842461c21a640 > Author: Don Zickus > Date: Fri Mar 14

Re: perf overlapping maps...

>header->misc. > > > > 2) Use this to elide the map groups clone in > >thread__clone_map_groups(). > > Looking into code history, I notice: > > commit 363b785f3805a2632eb09a8b430842461c21a640 > Author: Don Zickus > Date: Fri Mar 14

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Allow option --mpath to read all files in

either a file or a directory. > > The behaviors are now: > > --mpath Read only the specific file as file > --mpath Read all files in as > files > --mpath --find-maintainer-files > Recurse through and read all files named > MAINTAINERS

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Allow option --mpath to read all files in

either a file or a directory. > > The behaviors are now: > > --mpath Read only the specific file as file > --mpath Read all files in as > files > --mpath --find-maintainer-files > Recurse through and read all files named > MAINTAINERS

Re: [PATCH] watchdog: Reduce message verbosity

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:43:34PM -0700, Sinan Kaya wrote: > Hi Don, > > On 7/30/2018 12:28 PM, Don Zickus wrote: > > > [0.152492] NMI watchdog: Perf event create on CPU 0 failed with -2 > > > [0.156002] NMI watchdog: Perf NMI watchdog permanently disabled

Re: [PATCH] watchdog: Reduce message verbosity

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:43:34PM -0700, Sinan Kaya wrote: > Hi Don, > > On 7/30/2018 12:28 PM, Don Zickus wrote: > > > [0.152492] NMI watchdog: Perf event create on CPU 0 failed with -2 > > > [0.156002] NMI watchdog: Perf NMI watchdog permanently disabled

Re: [PATCH] watchdog: Reduce message verbosity

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:09:47PM -0700, Sinan Kaya wrote: > Reducing the verbosity level to debug for people that are interested in > debugging watchdog issues. > > [0.152492] NMI watchdog: Perf event create on CPU 0 failed with -2 > [0.156002] NMI watchdog: Perf NMI watchdog

Re: [PATCH] watchdog: Reduce message verbosity

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:09:47PM -0700, Sinan Kaya wrote: > Reducing the verbosity level to debug for people that are interested in > debugging watchdog issues. > > [0.152492] NMI watchdog: Perf event create on CPU 0 failed with -2 > [0.156002] NMI watchdog: Perf NMI watchdog

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 05:20:19PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 05:11:58PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 14:51 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:14:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Fri,

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 05:20:19PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 05:11:58PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 14:51 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:14:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Fri,

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 05:11:58PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 14:51 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:14:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 15:09 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2018-07

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 05:11:58PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 14:51 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:14:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 15:09 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2018-07

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:14:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 15:09 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 17:58 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > We have an internal use case of multiple MAINTAINER files, some folks have > > > more right

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:14:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 15:09 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 17:58 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > We have an internal use case of multiple MAINTAINER files, some folks have > > > more right

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:14:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 15:09 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 17:58 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > We have an internal use case of multiple MAINTAINER files, some folks have > > > more right

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:14:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 15:09 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 17:58 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > We have an internal use case of multiple MAINTAINER files, some folks have > > > more right

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:14:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 15:09 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 17:58 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > We have an internal use case of multiple MAINTAINER files, some folks have > > > more right

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:14:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 15:09 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 17:58 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > We have an internal use case of multiple MAINTAINER files, some folks have > > > more right

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:09:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 17:58 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 02:36:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > > > Just trying to find ways to minimize our collection of

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:09:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 17:58 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 02:36:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > > > Just trying to find ways to minimize our collection of

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 02:36:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > Just trying to find ways to minimize our collection of private > > > > > patches. > > > > > > > > Perhaps that could be extended for your purpose > > > > with some additional argument like a specific > > > > optional

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 02:36:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > Just trying to find ways to minimize our collection of private > > > > > patches. > > > > > > > > Perhaps that could be extended for your purpose > > > > with some additional argument like a specific > > > > optional

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 11:31:13AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 13:54 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:16:11PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 14:25 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > > OSes have addi

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 11:31:13AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 13:54 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:16:11PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 14:25 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > > OSes have addi

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 11:31:13AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 13:54 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:16:11PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 14:25 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > > OSes have addi

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 11:31:13AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 13:54 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:16:11PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 14:25 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > > OSes have addi

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:16:11PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 14:25 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > OSes have additional maintainers that should be cc'd on patches or may > > want to circulate internal patches. > > > > Parse the .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS file. Entries

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Add optional .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS override

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:16:11PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 14:25 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > OSes have additional maintainers that should be cc'd on patches or may > > want to circulate internal patches. > > > > Parse the .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS file. Entries

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Better document the hardlockup_panic sysctl

t; corresponding entry in Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt. Acked-by: Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com> > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <sw...@redhat.com> > --- > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 3 +++ > Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Better document the hardlockup_panic sysctl

t; corresponding entry in Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt. Acked-by: Don Zickus > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood > --- > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 3 +++ > Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt | 14 ++ > 2 files c

[tip:core/urgent] watchdog/hardlockup/perf: Use atomics to track in-use cpu counter

Commit-ID: 42f930da7f00c0ab23df4c7aed36137f35988980 Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/42f930da7f00c0ab23df4c7aed36137f35988980 Author: Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com> AuthorDate: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:11:27 -0400 Committer: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> CommitDate: Wed

[tip:core/urgent] watchdog/hardlockup/perf: Use atomics to track in-use cpu counter

Commit-ID: 42f930da7f00c0ab23df4c7aed36137f35988980 Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/42f930da7f00c0ab23df4c7aed36137f35988980 Author: Don Zickus AuthorDate: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:11:27 -0400 Committer: Thomas Gleixner CommitDate: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 21:18:40 +0100 watchdog/hardlockup/perf

[tip:core/urgent] watchdog/hardlockup/perf: Use atomics to track in-use cpu counter

Commit-ID: c7254c8aabe3025770fdb6f2d84aded11716ca2b Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/c7254c8aabe3025770fdb6f2d84aded11716ca2b Author: Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com> AuthorDate: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:11:27 -0400 Committer: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> CommitDate: Wed

[tip:core/urgent] watchdog/hardlockup/perf: Use atomics to track in-use cpu counter

Commit-ID: c7254c8aabe3025770fdb6f2d84aded11716ca2b Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/c7254c8aabe3025770fdb6f2d84aded11716ca2b Author: Don Zickus AuthorDate: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:11:27 -0400 Committer: Thomas Gleixner CommitDate: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 20:41:28 +0100 watchdog/hardlockup/perf

Re: Crashes in perf_event_ctx_lock_nested

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 03:11:07PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:32:00PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > [ ...] > > > So we have to revert > > > > a33d44843d45 ("watchdog/hardlockup/perf: Simplify deferred event destroy") > > > > Patch attached. > > > >

Re: Crashes in perf_event_ctx_lock_nested

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 03:11:07PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:32:00PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > [ ...] > > > So we have to revert > > > > a33d44843d45 ("watchdog/hardlockup/perf: Simplify deferred event destroy") > > > > Patch attached. > > > >

Re: Crashes in perf_event_ctx_lock_nested

> > Is Chrome OS, changing the default timeout from 10s to something else? > > That would explain it as a script is executed late in the boot cycle and > > explain the quick restart. > > > > Correct, Chrome OS changes the timeout from 10 to 5 seconds. > > A little experiment suggests that the

Re: Crashes in perf_event_ctx_lock_nested

> > Is Chrome OS, changing the default timeout from 10s to something else? > > That would explain it as a script is executed late in the boot cycle and > > explain the quick restart. > > > > Correct, Chrome OS changes the timeout from 10 to 5 seconds. > > A little experiment suggests that the

Re: Crashes in perf_event_ctx_lock_nested

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:16:22AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:48:50PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 03:45:12PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > I added some logging and a long msleep() in > > > hardlockup_detector_perf_cleanup(). > > >

Re: Crashes in perf_event_ctx_lock_nested

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:16:22AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:48:50PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 03:45:12PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > I added some logging and a long msleep() in > > > hardlockup_detector_perf_cleanup(). > > >

Re: Crashes in perf_event_ctx_lock_nested

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 03:45:12PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > we are seeing the following crash in v4.14-rc5/rc7 if > CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR > is enabled. > > [5.908021] NMI watchdog: Enabled. Permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter. > [5.915836] >

Re: Crashes in perf_event_ctx_lock_nested

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 03:45:12PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > we are seeing the following crash in v4.14-rc5/rc7 if > CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR > is enabled. > > [5.908021] NMI watchdog: Enabled. Permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter. > [5.915836] >

Re: [patch V2 22/29] lockup_detector: Make watchdog_nmi_reconfigure() two stage

tip.git WIP.core/urgent > > That's based on 4.13 final so it neither contains 4.14 nor -next material. Tested your changes on 4.14-rc3 and it passes my tests. Thanks! Tested-and-Reviewed-by: Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com>

Re: [patch V2 22/29] lockup_detector: Make watchdog_nmi_reconfigure() two stage

tip.git WIP.core/urgent > > That's based on 4.13 final so it neither contains 4.14 nor -next material. Tested your changes on 4.14-rc3 and it passes my tests. Thanks! Tested-and-Reviewed-by: Don Zickus

Re: [RFC GIT Pull] core watchdog sanitizing

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 07:32:57PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Side note: would it perhaps make sense to have that > > cpus_read_lock/unlock() sequence around the whole reconfiguration > > section? > > > > Because while looking at that sequence,

Re: [RFC GIT Pull] core watchdog sanitizing

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 07:32:57PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Side note: would it perhaps make sense to have that > > cpus_read_lock/unlock() sequence around the whole reconfiguration > > section? > > > > Because while looking at that sequence,

Re: [PATCH][next] kernel: watchdog: fix spelling mistake: "permanetely" -> "permanently"

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 09:36:03AM +, Colin King wrote: > From: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com> > > trivial fix to spelling mistake in pr_info message Acked-by: Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com> > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@

Re: [PATCH][next] kernel: watchdog: fix spelling mistake: "permanetely" -> "permanently"

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 09:36:03AM +, Colin King wrote: > From: Colin Ian King > > trivial fix to spelling mistake in pr_info message Acked-by: Don Zickus > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King > --- > kernel/watchdog_hld.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+),

Re: [patch V2 04/29] parisc: Use lockup_detector_stop()

the busy looping power off routine. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> > > Cc: Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com> > > Cc: Chris Metcalf <cmetc...@mellanox.com> > > Cc: linux-par...@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet.

Re: [patch V2 04/29] parisc: Use lockup_detector_stop()

tine. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner > > Cc: Don Zickus > > Cc: Chris Metcalf > > Cc: linux-par...@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra > > Cc: Sebastian Siewior > > Cc: Nicholas Piggin > > Cc: Ulrich Obergfell > >

Re: [patch V2 00/29] lockup_detector: Cure hotplug deadlocks and replace duct tape

makes it unreadable > > - There is more wreckage, but see the changelogs for the ugly details. > Aside from the simple compile issue in patch 25. I have no issues with this patchset. Thanks Thomas! Reviewed-by: Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com> > The following series sanitizes t

Re: [patch V2 00/29] lockup_detector: Cure hotplug deadlocks and replace duct tape

makes it unreadable > > - There is more wreckage, but see the changelogs for the ugly details. > Aside from the simple compile issue in patch 25. I have no issues with this patchset. Thanks Thomas! Reviewed-by: Don Zickus > The following series sanitizes the facility and addresses the

Re: [patch V2 25/29] lockup_detector: Implement init time detection of perf

mas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> > Cc: Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com> > Cc: Chris Metcalf <cmetc...@mellanox.com> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> > Cc: Sebastian Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de> > Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> >

Re: [patch V2 25/29] lockup_detector: Implement init time detection of perf

Gleixner > Cc: Don Zickus > Cc: Chris Metcalf > Cc: Peter Zijlstra > Cc: Sebastian Siewior > Cc: Nicholas Piggin > Cc: Ulrich Obergfell > Cc: Borislav Petkov > Cc: Andrew Morton > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170831073054.997264...@linutronix.de > > --

Re: [patch 00/29] lockup_detector: Cure hotplug deadlocks and replace duct tape

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:15:58AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > The lockup detector is broken is several ways: > > - It's deadlock prone vs. CPU hotplug in various ways. Some of these > are due to recursive cpus_read_lock() others are due to > cpus_read_lock() from CPU hotplug

Re: [patch 00/29] lockup_detector: Cure hotplug deadlocks and replace duct tape

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:15:58AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > The lockup detector is broken is several ways: > > - It's deadlock prone vs. CPU hotplug in various ways. Some of these > are due to recursive cpus_read_lock() others are due to > cpus_read_lock() from CPU hotplug

Re: [patch 24/29] lockup_detector/perf: Implement init time perf validation

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:16:22AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > The watchdog tries to create perf events even after it figured out that > perf is not functional or the requested event is not supported. > > That's braindead as this can be done once at init time and if not supported > the NMI

Re: [patch 24/29] lockup_detector/perf: Implement init time perf validation

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:16:22AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > The watchdog tries to create perf events even after it figured out that > perf is not functional or the requested event is not supported. > > That's braindead as this can be done once at init time and if not supported > the NMI

Re: [patch 11/29] lockup_detector: Remove park_in_progress hackery

On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 02:10:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 01:09:06PM +0200, Ulrich Obergfell wrote: > > > - A thread hogs CPU N (soft lockup) so that watchdog/N is unable to run. > > - A user re-configures 'watchdog_thresh' on the fly. The reconfiguration > >

Re: [patch 11/29] lockup_detector: Remove park_in_progress hackery

On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 02:10:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 01:09:06PM +0200, Ulrich Obergfell wrote: > > > - A thread hogs CPU N (soft lockup) so that watchdog/N is unable to run. > > - A user re-configures 'watchdog_thresh' on the fly. The reconfiguration > >

Re: [patch 10/29] lockup_detector/perf: Prevent cpu hotplug deadlock

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 09:29:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 1 Sep 2017, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:16:08AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > The following deadlock is possible in the watchdog hotplug code: > > &g

Re: [patch 10/29] lockup_detector/perf: Prevent cpu hotplug deadlock

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 09:29:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 1 Sep 2017, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:16:08AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > The following deadlock is possible in the watchdog hotplug code: > > &g

Re: [patch 17/29] lockup_detector: Get rid of the thread teardown/setup dance

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:16:15AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > The lockup detector reconfiguration tears down all watchdog threads when > the watchdog is disabled and sets them up again when its enabled. > > That's a pointless exercise. The watchdog threads are not consuming an > insane

Re: [patch 17/29] lockup_detector: Get rid of the thread teardown/setup dance

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:16:15AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > The lockup detector reconfiguration tears down all watchdog threads when > the watchdog is disabled and sets them up again when its enabled. > > That's a pointless exercise. The watchdog threads are not consuming an > insane

Re: [patch 10/29] lockup_detector/perf: Prevent cpu hotplug deadlock

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:16:08AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > The following deadlock is possible in the watchdog hotplug code: > > cpus_write_lock() > ... > takedown_cpu() > smpboot_park_threads() > smpboot_park_thread() > kthread_park() >

Re: [patch 10/29] lockup_detector/perf: Prevent cpu hotplug deadlock

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:16:08AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > The following deadlock is possible in the watchdog hotplug code: > > cpus_write_lock() > ... > takedown_cpu() > smpboot_park_threads() > smpboot_park_thread() > kthread_park() >

Re: [patch 00/29] lockup_detector: Cure hotplug deadlocks and replace duct tape

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:15:58AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > The lockup detector is broken is several ways: > > - It's deadlock prone vs. CPU hotplug in various ways. Some of these > are due to recursive cpus_read_lock() others are due to > cpus_read_lock() from CPU hotplug

Re: [patch 00/29] lockup_detector: Cure hotplug deadlocks and replace duct tape

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:15:58AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > The lockup detector is broken is several ways: > > - It's deadlock prone vs. CPU hotplug in various ways. Some of these > are due to recursive cpus_read_lock() others are due to > cpus_read_lock() from CPU hotplug

Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix Kconfig constraints for perf hardlockup watchdog

gs assumed an arch went one way or the other. I think this is a good workaround for now. Acked-by: Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com> > > Fixes: 05a4a9527931 ("kernel/watchdog: split up config options") > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> > --- > >

Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix Kconfig constraints for perf hardlockup watchdog

gs assumed an arch went one way or the other. I think this is a good workaround for now. Acked-by: Don Zickus > > Fixes: 05a4a9527931 ("kernel/watchdog: split up config options") > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin > --- > > arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 2 +- > arch/x86/Kconf

Re: [PATCH] x86/nmi: Use raw lock

where we register an nmi handler. Acked-by: Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com> > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <sw...@redhat.com> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c | 18 +- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/ke

Re: [PATCH] x86/nmi: Use raw lock

where we register an nmi handler. Acked-by: Don Zickus > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood > --- > arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c | 18 +- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c b/arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c > index

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:24:23AM +, Liang, Kan wrote: > Hi Don & Thomas, > > Sorry for the late response. We just finished the tests for all proposed > patches. > > There are three proposed patches so far. > Patch 1: The patch as above which speed up the hrtimer. > Patch 2: Thomas's first

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:24:23AM +, Liang, Kan wrote: > Hi Don & Thomas, > > Sorry for the late response. We just finished the tests for all proposed > patches. > > There are three proposed patches so far. > Patch 1: The patch as above which speed up the hrtimer. > Patch 2: Thomas's first

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:12:20AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:44:06AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 01:14:04PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > It can be a useful debugging tool for a specific class of bugs: > > > when

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:12:20AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:44:06AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 01:14:04PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > It can be a useful debugging tool for a specific class of bugs: > > > when

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 01:14:04PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > It can be a useful debugging tool for a specific class of bugs: > when kernel software is looping forever. > > But if that happens does it really matter how many iterations the > loop does before it is stopped? > > Even the current

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 01:14:04PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > It can be a useful debugging tool for a specific class of bugs: > when kernel software is looping forever. > > But if that happens does it really matter how many iterations the > loop does before it is stopped? > > Even the current

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 04:48:22PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > I haven't heard back any test result yet. > > > > The above patch looks good to me. > > This needs performance testing. It may slow down performance or latency > sensitive workloads. More motivation to work through the issues

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 04:48:22PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > I haven't heard back any test result yet. > > > > The above patch looks good to me. > > This needs performance testing. It may slow down performance or latency > sensitive workloads. More motivation to work through the issues

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 08:49:19PM +, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:19:27PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:50:25PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Don Zickus wrote: > > > >

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 08:49:19PM +, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:19:27PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:50:25PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Don Zickus wrote: > > > >

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:19:27PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:50:25PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Don Zickus wrote: > > > Hmm, all this work for a temp fix. Kan, how much longer until the real > > > fix > >

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:19:27PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:50:25PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Don Zickus wrote: > > > Hmm, all this work for a temp fix. Kan, how much longer until the real > > > fix > >

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:50:25PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Don Zickus wrote: > > Hmm, all this work for a temp fix. Kan, how much longer until the real fix > > of having perf count the right cycles? > > Quite a while. The approach is wilfully br

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:50:25PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Don Zickus wrote: > > Hmm, all this work for a temp fix. Kan, how much longer until the real fix > > of having perf count the right cycles? > > Quite a while. The approach is wilfully br

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 10:01:55AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:53:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, kan.li...@intel.com wrote: > > > > We now have more and more

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 10:01:55AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:53:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, kan.li...@intel.com wrote: > > > > We now have more and more

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:53:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, kan.li...@intel.com wrote: > > We now have more and more systems where the Turbo range is wide enough > > that the NMI watchdog expires faster than the soft watchdog timer that > > updates the interrupt tick

Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:53:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, kan.li...@intel.com wrote: > > We now have more and more systems where the Turbo range is wide enough > > that the NMI watchdog expires faster than the soft watchdog timer that > > updates the interrupt tick

Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:40:28PM +, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > > > > > The right fix for mainline can be found here. > > > perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter perf/x86/intel, > > > watchdog: Switch NMI watchdog to ref cycles on x86 > > >

Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:40:28PM +, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > > > > > The right fix for mainline can be found here. > > > perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter perf/x86/intel, > > > watchdog: Switch NMI watchdog to ref cycles on x86 > > >

Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: hide unused function

gt; This adds another #ifdef around it. Thanks! Acked-by: Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com> > > Fixes: mmotm ("kernel/watchdog: provide watchdog_nmi_reconfigure() for arch > watchdogs") > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> > --- > kernel/watchdog.

Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: hide unused function

gt; This adds another #ifdef around it. Thanks! Acked-by: Don Zickus > > Fixes: mmotm ("kernel/watchdog: provide watchdog_nmi_reconfigure() for arch > watchdogs") > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann > --- > kernel/watchdog.c | 4 > 1 file changed, 4 insert

Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 02:33:09PM -0700, kan.li...@intel.com wrote: > From: Kan Liang > > Some users reported spurious NMI watchdog timeouts. > > We now have more and more systems where the Turbo range is wide enough > that the NMI watchdog expires faster than the soft

Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 02:33:09PM -0700, kan.li...@intel.com wrote: > From: Kan Liang > > Some users reported spurious NMI watchdog timeouts. > > We now have more and more systems where the Turbo range is wide enough > that the NMI watchdog expires faster than the soft watchdog timer that >

Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Improve watchdog config for arch watchdogs

hdog patches seem to go via Andrew... Andrew, suggestions here? Reviewed-by: Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com> Acked-by: Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com> > > Thanks, > Nick > > Nicholas Piggin (5): > watchdog: remove unused declaration > watchdog: introduc

Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Improve watchdog config for arch watchdogs

hdog patches seem to go via Andrew... Andrew, suggestions here? Reviewed-by: Don Zickus Acked-by: Don Zickus > > Thanks, > Nick > > Nicholas Piggin (5): > watchdog: remove unused declaration > watchdog: introduce arch_touch_nmi_watchdog() > watchdog: split up

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >