Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 2 Aug 2023 09:27:20 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com>,
        Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog/hardlockup: Avoid large stack frames in
 watchdog_hardlockup_check()
Message-ID: <ZMoFWK0uGdneJYVc@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20230731091754.1.I501ab68cb926ee33a7c87e063d207abf09b9943c@changeid>
 <ZMkBY7K3Dn04YQ65@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAD=FV=V5hx7Zy-XMB=sPYcD_h-iP5VknmEoJwvw3Akd_1wDnRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZMkkNpYcaYPAMj0Z@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAD=FV=Ujmyq-1GAvNJsrp=mj_Vg=9b6fmfMfkHq3+8ZQ5KiaRw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=Ujmyq-1GAvNJsrp=mj_Vg=9b6fmfMfkHq3+8ZQ5KiaRw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 01-08-23 08:41:49, Doug Anderson wrote:
[...]
> Ah, I see what you mean. The one issue I have with your solution is
> that the ordering of the stack crawls is less ideal in the "dump all"
> case when cpu != this_cpu. We really want to see the stack crawl of
> the locked up CPU first and _then_ see the stack crawls of other CPUs.
> With your solution the locked up CPU will be interspersed with all the
> others and will be harder to find in the output (you've got to match
> it up with the "Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu N" message).
> While that's probably not a huge deal, it's nicer to make the output
> easy to understand for someone trying to parse it...

Is it worth to waste memory for this arguably nicer output? Identifying
the stack of the locked up CPU is trivial. 
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs