On 2022/11/28 12:08, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 02:22:03PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: >> Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst: >> 401: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found. >> 428: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found. >> 445: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found. >> 459: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found. >> 468: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found. >> >> The literal block need to be indented, so add two spaces to each line. >> > > What about following patch description below instead? > > ``` > When merging rcu tree for linux-next, Stephen Rothwell reported htmldocs > warnings: > > <warnings>... > > These are due to unindented literal blocks. Indent them to fix these > warnings. > ``` That's great. Thanks. > >> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst >> index c1e92dfef40d501..ca7b7cd806a16c9 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst >> @@ -398,9 +398,9 @@ In kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_CPUTIME=y or booted with >> rcupdate.rcu_cpu_stall_cputime=1, the following additional information >> is supplied with each RCU CPU stall warning:: >> >> -rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system >> -rcu: number: 624 45 0 >> -rcu: cputime: 69 1 2425 ==> 2500(ms) >> + rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system >> + rcu: number: 624 45 0 >> + rcu: cputime: 69 1 2425 ==> 2500(ms) >> > > OK. > >> -The sampling period is shown as follows: >> -:<------------first timeout---------->:<-----second timeout----->: >> -:<--half timeout-->:<--half timeout-->: : >> -: :<--first period-->: : >> -: :<-----------second sampling period---------->: >> -: : : : >> -: snapshot time point 1st-stall 2nd-stall >> +The sampling period is shown as follows:: >> >> + |<------------first timeout---------->|<-----second timeout----->| >> + |<--half timeout-->|<--half timeout-->| | >> + | |<--first period-->| | >> + | |<-----------second sampling period---------->| >> + | | | | >> + snapshot time point 1st-stall 2nd-stall >> > > OK. > >> The following describes four typical scenarios: >> >> -1. A CPU looping with interrupts disabled.:: >> +1. A CPU looping with interrupts disabled. >> >> - rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system >> - rcu: number: 0 0 0 >> - rcu: cputime: 0 0 0 ==> 2500(ms) >> + :: >> + >> + rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system >> + rcu: number: 0 0 0 >> + rcu: cputime: 0 0 0 ==> 2500(ms) > > OK. > >> This is similar to the previous example, but with non-zero number of >> and CPU time consumed by hard interrupts, along with non-zero CPU >> - time consumed by in-kernel execution.:: >> + time consumed by in-kernel execution:: >> >> - rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system >> - rcu: number: 624 0 0 >> - rcu: cputime: 49 0 2446 ==> 2500(ms) >> + rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system >> + rcu: number: 624 0 0 >> + rcu: cputime: 49 0 2446 ==> 2500(ms) > > OK. > >> >> 3. A CPU looping with preemption disabled. >> >> - Here, only the number of context switches is zero.:: >> + Here, only the number of context switches is zero:: >> >> - rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system >> - rcu: number: 624 45 0 >> - rcu: cputime: 69 1 2425 ==> 2500(ms) >> + rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system >> + rcu: number: 624 45 0 >> + rcu: cputime: 69 1 2425 ==> 2500(ms) > > OK. > >> >> This situation hints that the stalled CPU was looping with preemption >> disabled. >> >> -4. No looping, but massive hard and soft interrupts.:: >> +4. No looping, but massive hard and soft interrupts. >> + >> + :: > > No, no that way. For consistency, the item sentence should also be end with > double colon marker: If you open Documentation/output/RCU/stallwarn.html on a web page, you'll find that my current change is correct. Indented paragraphs are displayed in smaller fonts. I want the following four sentences to end with a dot. Subparagraphs that are subordinate to them are additionally indented. So there's no need to use colons to emphasize it. 1. A CPU looping with interrupts disabled. 2. A CPU looping with bottom halves disabled. 3. A CPU looping with preemption disabled. 4. No looping, but massive hard and soft interrupts. > > ---- >8 ---- > > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst > index ca7b7cd806a16c..056127ef2b8e7e 100644 > --- a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst > @@ -465,9 +465,7 @@ The following describes four typical scenarios: > This situation hints that the stalled CPU was looping with preemption > disabled. > > -4. No looping, but massive hard and soft interrupts. > - > - :: > +4. No looping, but massive hard and soft interrupts:: > > rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system > rcu: number: xx xx 0 > > Thanks. > -- Regards, Zhen Lei
