On 10/20, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Currently check_hung_task() prints a warning if it detects the problem, > > but it is not convenient to watch the system logs if user-space wants to > > be notified about the hang. > > > > Add the new trace_sched_process_hang() into check_hung_task(), this way > > a user-space monitor can easily wait for the hang and potentially > > resolve a problem. > > I'm wondering, is the data of trace_console() in kernel/printk/printk.c > not sufficient?
Probably yes... I do not think they disable CONFIG_PRINTK. But this is obviously much less convenient, they will need to parse the text. And the user-space watchdog will be woken up much more often than necessary. And they could probably simply read /var/log or interact with syslogd somehow, but they specially asked for something better and more robust. But of course, I understand that every tracepoint should be justified. So if you do not like this change I try to convince them to use trace_console(). > If it's not enough then it might be better to add a higher level printk > tracepoint instead - that can catch hung_task messages and (much) more. Not sure I understand... I mean I do not understand why this is really better for them, except this will simplify the parsing a bit. Anyway I'd prefer to not send another doubtful patch ;) Thanks. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
