On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 01:16:47PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sat, 2024-07-13 at 22:28 +0530, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > @@ -228,6 +241,7 @@ static bool
> > csd_lock_wait_toolong(call_single_data_t *csd, u64 ts0, u64 *ts1, in
> > cpu = csd_lock_wait_getcpu(csd);
> > pr_alert("csd: CSD lock (#%d) got unstuck on
> > CPU#%02d, CPU#%02d released the lock.\n",
> > *bug_id, raw_smp_processor_id(), cpu);
> > + atomic_dec(&n_csd_lock_stuck);
> > return true;
> > }
> >
>
> So we decrement it when it gets unstuck. Good.
>
> > @@ -251,6 +265,8 @@ static bool
> > csd_lock_wait_toolong(call_single_data_t *csd, u64 ts0, u64 *ts1, in
> > pr_alert("csd: %s non-responsive CSD lock (#%d) on CPU#%d,
> > waiting %lld ns for CPU#%02d %pS(%ps).\n",
> > firsttime ? "Detected" : "Continued", *bug_id,
> > raw_smp_processor_id(), (s64)ts_delta,
> > cpu, csd->func, csd->info);
> > + if (firsttime)
> > + atomic_dec(&n_csd_lock_stuck);
> >
>
> However, I don't see any place where it is incremented when things
> get stuck, and this line decrements it when a CPU gets stuck for
> the first time?
>
> Should this be an atomic_inc?
Good catch, thank you! I will go get that brown paper bag...
Thanx, Paul
