Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:52:04 -0500
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: implement lockup detector
Message-ID: <20151204165204.GB70558@redhat.com>
References: <20151203002810.GJ19878@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20151203002839.GK19878@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20151203175024.GE27730@redhat.com>
 <20151203194358.GK27463@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <1971916814.34665208.1449173540866.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
 <20151203205449.GL27463@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20151204080226.GA25880@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151204080226.GA25880@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2138
Lines: 50

On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 09:02:26AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * 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.

It might be worth tying them together with a generic knob and expanding the
bit mask for the 'watchdog' variable.  I can't figure out an easy way to do
that right now.

I don't think we want to go down the route of 'registering' detectors yet.
:-)

Cheers,
Don
--
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/