On 7/25/19 11:38 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/07/25 2:02, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> Hung task detector has one timeout and has two associated actions on it:
>> - issuing warnings with names and stacks of blocked tasks
>> - panic()
>>
>> We want switches to panic (and reboot) if there's a task
>> in uninterruptible sleep for some minutes - at that moment something
>> ugly has happened and the box needs a reboot.
>> But we also want to detect conditions that are "out of range"
>> or approaching the point of failure. Under such conditions we want
>> to issue an "early warning" of an impending failure, minutes before
>> the switch is going to panic.
>
> Can't we do it by extending sysctl_hung_task_panic to accept values larger
> than 1, and decrease by one when at least one thread was reported by each
> check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks() check, and call panic() when
> sysctl_hung_task_panic reached to 0 (or maybe 1 is simpler) ?
>
> Hmm, might have the same problem regarding how/when to reset the counter.
> If some userspace process can reset the counter, such process can trigger
> SysRq-c when some period expired...
Yes, also current distributions already using the counter to print
warnings number of times and then silently ignore. I.e., on my Arch
Linux setup:
hung_task_warnings:10
>> It seems rather easy to add printing tasks and their stacks for
>> notification and debugging purposes into hung task detector without
>> complicating the code or major cost (prints are with KERN_INFO loglevel
>> and so don't go on console, only into dmesg log).
>
> Well, I don't think so. Might be noisy for systems without "quiet" kernel
> command line option, and we can't pass KERN_DEBUG to e.g. sched_show_task()...
Yes, that's why it's disabled by default (=0).
I tend to agree that printing with KERN_DEBUG may be better, but in my
point of view the patch isn't enough justification for patching
sched_show_task() and show_stack().
Thanks,
Dmitry
