Re: [Cocci] [PATCH V2] kernel/hung_task.c: Introduce sysctl to print all traces when a hung task is detected

2020-03-24 Thread Kees Cook
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 09:45:40AM -0300, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote: > Thanks Randy and Vlastimil for the comments. I really liked your > approach Vlastimil, I agree that we have no reason to not have a generic > sysctl setting via cmdline mechanism - I'll rework this patch removing > the kernel

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH V2] kernel/hung_task.c: Introduce sysctl to print all traces when a hung task is detected

2020-03-24 Thread Vlastimil Babka
On 3/23/20 10:46 PM, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote: > Commit 401c636a0eeb ("kernel/hung_task.c: show all hung tasks before panic") > introduced a change in that we started to show all CPUs backtraces when a > hung task is detected _and_ the sysctl/kernel parameter "hung_task_panic" > is set. The idea

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH V2] kernel/hung_task.c: Introduce sysctl to print all traces when a hung task is detected

2020-03-24 Thread Randy Dunlap
Hi, On 3/23/20 2:46 PM, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote: > > .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 6 > Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst | 15 ++ > include/linux/sched/sysctl.h | 7 + > kernel/hung_task.c| 30

[Cocci] [PATCH V2] kernel/hung_task.c: Introduce sysctl to print all traces when a hung task is detected

2020-03-24 Thread Guilherme G. Piccoli
Commit 401c636a0eeb ("kernel/hung_task.c: show all hung tasks before panic") introduced a change in that we started to show all CPUs backtraces when a hung task is detected _and_ the sysctl/kernel parameter "hung_task_panic" is set. The idea is good, because usually when observing deadlocks (that

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH V2] kernel/hung_task.c: Introduce sysctl to print all traces when a hung task is detected

2020-03-24 Thread Guilherme G. Piccoli
On 24/03/2020 05:27, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > [...] > Before adding a new thing as both kernel parameter and sysctl, could we > perhaps > not add the kernel parameter, in favor of the generic sysctl parameter > solution? > [1] There were no objections and some support from Kees, so I will try to