Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 07:11:13 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: disable irq when holding watchdog_lock.
Message-ID: <d76da5a6-d4fa-405b-8fec-7b87cb776e71@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <80ff5036-8449-44a6-ba2f-0130d3be6b57@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <CANDhNCpw+hEHNbtdAZR01HsHW_L1C0BXjZq21eXouQGNnYuUNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <878r826xys.ffs@tglx>
 <ae4e5836-bc42-42fa-bd41-2a2fd483acb5@paulmck-laptop>
 <8734y97ng5.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8734y97ng5.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16 2023 at 16:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 11:47:55PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> That said, this whole clocksource watchdog mess wants a proper
> >> overhaul. It has become a pile of warts and duct tape by now and after
> >> staring at it long enough there is no real reason to run it in a timer
> >> callback anymore. It just can move into delayed work and the whole
> >> locking problem can be reduced to the clocksource_mutex and some well
> >> thought out atomic operations to handle the mark unstable case. But
> >> that's a different story and not relevant for curing the problem at
> >> hand.
> >
> > Moving the code to delayed work seems quite reasonable.
> >
> > But Thomas, you do understand that the way things have been going for
> > the clocksource watchdog, pushing it out to delayed work will no doubt
> > add yet more hair on large busy systems, right?  Yeah, yeah, I know,
> > delayed work shouldn't be any worse than ksoftirqd.  The key word of
> > course being "shouldn't".  ;-)
> 
> Yes, I'm aware of that. I still think it's worth at least to try it.

OK, good.  And again, agreed.

							Thanx, Paul