* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Out of direct experience, 95% of the "too long delay" cases are plain > > old bugs. The rest we can (and must!) convert to TASK_KILLABLE or could > > I already pointed out a few cases (nfs, cifs, smbfs, ncpfs, afs). It > would be pretty bad to merge this patch without converting them to > TASK_KILLABLE first
which we want to do in 2.6.25 anyway, so i dont see any big problems here. Also, it costs nothing to just stick it in and see the results, worst case we'd have to flip around the default. I think this is much ado about nothing - so far i dont really see any objective basis for your negative attitude. > There's also the additional issue that even block devices are often > network or SAN backed these days. Having 120 second delays in there is > quite possible. > > So most likely adding this patch and still keeping a robust kernel > would require converting most of these delays to TASK_KILLABLE first. > That would not be a bad thing -- i would often like to kill a process > stuck on a bad block device -- but is likely a lot of work. what if you considered - just for a minute - the possibility of this debug tool being the thing that actually animates developers to fix such long delay bugs that have bothered users for almost a decade meanwhile? Until now users had little direct recourse to get such problems fixed. (we had sysrq-t, but that included no real metric of how long a task was blocked, so there was no direct link in the typical case and users had no real reliable tool to express their frustration about unreasonable delays.) Now this changes: they get a "smoking gun" backtrace reported by the kernel, and blamed on exactly the place that caused that unreasonable delay. And it's not like the kernel breaks - at most 10 such messages are reported per bootup. We increase the delay timeout to say 300 seconds, and if the system is under extremely high IO load then 120+ might be a reasonable delay, so it's all tunable and runtime disable-able anyway. So if you _know_ that you will see and tolerate such long delays, you can tweak it - but i can tell you with 100% certainty that 99.9% of the typical Linux users do not characterize such long delays as "correct behavior". > > There are no softlockup false positive bugs open at the moment. If > > you know about any, then please do not hesitate and report them, > > i'll be eager to fix them. The softlockup detector is turned on by > > default in Fedora (alongside lockdep in rawhide), and it helped us > > find countless > > That just means nobody runs stress tests on those. [...] that is an all-encompassing blanket assertion that sadly drips of ill will (which permeates your mails lately). I for example run tons of stress tests on "those" and of course many others do too. So i dont really know what to think of your statement :-( > [...] e.g. lockdep tends to explode even on simple stress tests on > larger systems because it tracks all locks in all dynamic objects in > memory and towards 6k-10k entries the graph walks tend to take > multiple seconds on some NUMA systems. a bug was fixed in this area - can you still see this with 2.6.24-rc3? [ But i'd be the first one to point out that lockdep is certainly not from the cheap tools department, that's why i said above that lockdep is enabled in Fedora rawhide (i.e. development) kernels. Softlockup detector is much cheaper and it's default enabled all the time. ] Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/