[watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: sys_unshare: simplify the not-really-implemented CLONE_THREAD/SIGHAND/VM code
Next: FS: libfs, implement simple_write_to_buffer
From: Randy Dunlap on 20 Apr 2010 12:00 On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:23:58 -0400 Don Zickus wrote: > diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig > index 7331a16..98e3f5f 100644 > --- a/init/Kconfig > +++ b/init/Kconfig > @@ -948,8 +948,11 @@ config PERF_USE_VMALLOC > > config PERF_EVENTS_NMI > bool > + depends on PERF_EVENTS > help > - Arch has support for nmi_watchdog > + Arch can generate an NMI using the perf event subsystem Hi Don, I realize that you didn't introduce Arch in this help text, but can we eliminate him, please? E.g.: Platform can generate an NMI using the perf event subsystem. or System hardware can generate an NMI using the perf event subsystem. > + Also has support for calculating cpu cycle events to CPU > + determine how many clock cycles in a given period period. > > menu "Kernel Performance Events And Counters" --- ~Randy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Don Zickus on 20 Apr 2010 12:20 On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 08:53:50AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:23:58 -0400 Don Zickus wrote: > > > diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig > > index 7331a16..98e3f5f 100644 > > --- a/init/Kconfig > > +++ b/init/Kconfig > > @@ -948,8 +948,11 @@ config PERF_USE_VMALLOC > > > > config PERF_EVENTS_NMI > > bool > > + depends on PERF_EVENTS > > help > > - Arch has support for nmi_watchdog > > + Arch can generate an NMI using the perf event subsystem > > Hi Don, > > I realize that you didn't introduce Arch in this help text, > but can we eliminate him, please? E.g.: yup. Thanks, Don -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Don Zickus on 19 Apr 2010 17:30 On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 03:47:14AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 05:25:10PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > The new nmi_watchdog (which uses the perf event subsystem) is very > > similar in structure to the softlockup detector. Using Ingo's suggestion, > > I combined the two functionalities into one file, kernel/watchdog.c. > > > > Now both the nmi_watchdog (or hardlockup detector) and softlockup detector > > sit on top of the perf event subsystem, which is run every 60 seconds or so > > to see if there are any lockups. Hello all, After making a bunch of cleanups, I am stuck debating whether to continue updating this patch on the stale branch perf/nmi on Ingo's tree or just repost the whole patch again (which isn't much bigger just adds the arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c piece). Part of the new patch series includes removing kernel/nmi_watchdog.c, which seemed kinda silly because it was only an intermediate file until things got shifted to kernel/watchdog.c Thoughts? Cheers, Don -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Ingo Molnar on 19 Apr 2010 17:40 * Don Zickus <dzickus(a)redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 03:47:14AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 05:25:10PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > The new nmi_watchdog (which uses the perf event subsystem) is very > > > similar in structure to the softlockup detector. Using Ingo's suggestion, > > > I combined the two functionalities into one file, kernel/watchdog.c. > > > > > > Now both the nmi_watchdog (or hardlockup detector) and softlockup detector > > > sit on top of the perf event subsystem, which is run every 60 seconds or so > > > to see if there are any lockups. > > Hello all, > > After making a bunch of cleanups, I am stuck debating whether to continue > updating this patch on the stale branch perf/nmi on Ingo's tree or just > repost the whole patch again (which isn't much bigger just adds the > arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c piece). > > Part of the new patch series includes removing kernel/nmi_watchdog.c, which > seemed kinda silly because it was only an intermediate file until things got > shifted to kernel/watchdog.c > > Thoughts? I'd prefer relative patches as the current perf/nmi bits are tested quite well. Intermediate stages are not a problem: 90% of the code in the kernel's Git history is 'intermediate' as well, in hindsight. What matters is that the workflow that resulted was clean and that the patches were (and are) clean. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Don Zickus on 19 Apr 2010 18:00
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:35:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Don Zickus <dzickus(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 03:47:14AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 05:25:10PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > > The new nmi_watchdog (which uses the perf event subsystem) is very > > > > similar in structure to the softlockup detector. Using Ingo's suggestion, > > > > I combined the two functionalities into one file, kernel/watchdog.c. > > > > > > > > Now both the nmi_watchdog (or hardlockup detector) and softlockup detector > > > > sit on top of the perf event subsystem, which is run every 60 seconds or so > > > > to see if there are any lockups. > > > > Hello all, > > > > After making a bunch of cleanups, I am stuck debating whether to continue > > updating this patch on the stale branch perf/nmi on Ingo's tree or just > > repost the whole patch again (which isn't much bigger just adds the > > arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c piece). > > > > Part of the new patch series includes removing kernel/nmi_watchdog.c, which > > seemed kinda silly because it was only an intermediate file until things got > > shifted to kernel/watchdog.c > > > > Thoughts? > > I'd prefer relative patches as the current perf/nmi bits are tested quite > well. > > Intermediate stages are not a problem: 90% of the code in the kernel's Git > history is 'intermediate' as well, in hindsight. What matters is that the > workflow that resulted was clean and that the patches were (and are) clean. Ok, I'll continue that then. Thanks. Cheers, Don -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |