On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 03:39:25PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> Change the default behavior of watchdog so it only runs on the
> housekeeping cores when nohz_full is enabled at build and boot time.
> Allow modifying the set of cores the watchdog is currently running
> on with a new kernel.watchdog_cpumask sysctl.
> 
> In the current system, the watchdog subsystem runs a periodic timer
> that schedules the watchdog kthread to run.  However, nohz_full cores
> are designed to allow userspace application code running on those cores
> to have 100% access to the CPU.  So the watchdog system prevents the
> nohz_full application code from being able to run the way it wants to,
> thus the motivation to suppress the watchdog on nohz_full cores,
> which this patchset provides by default.
> 
> However, if we disable the watchdog globally, then the housekeeping
> cores can't benefit from the watchdog functionality.  So we allow
> disabling it only on some cores.  See Documentation/lockup-watchdogs.txt
> for more information.
> 
> Acked-by: Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Metcalf <cmetc...@ezchip.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/lockup-watchdogs.txt | 18 +++++++++++
>  Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt    | 21 +++++++++++++
>  include/linux/nmi.h                |  3 ++
>  kernel/sysctl.c                    |  7 +++++
>  kernel/watchdog.c                  | 64 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  5 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>

<snip>
 
> @@ -697,8 +704,12 @@ static int watchdog_enable_all_cpus(void)
>               err = smpboot_register_percpu_thread(&watchdog_threads);
>               if (err)
>                       pr_err("Failed to create watchdog threads, disabled\n");
> -             else
> +             else {
> +                     if (smpboot_update_cpumask_percpu_thread(
> +                                 &watchdog_threads, &watchdog_cpumask))
> +                             pr_err("Failed to set cpumask for watchdog 
> threads\n");

Stupid nitpick, this error message tells us the 'watchdog' threads caused
the cpumask failure, but ....

>                       watchdog_running = 1;
> +             }
>       } else {
>               /*
>                * Enable/disable the lockup detectors or
> @@ -869,12 +880,55 @@ out:
>       mutex_unlock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
>       return err;
>  }
> +
> +/*
> + * The cpumask is the mask of possible cpus that the watchdog can run
> + * on, not the mask of cpus it is actually running on.  This allows the
> + * user to specify a mask that will include cpus that have not yet
> + * been brought online, if desired.
> + */
> +int proc_watchdog_cpumask(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> +                       void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> +     int err;
> +
> +     mutex_lock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
> +     err = proc_do_large_bitmap(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
> +     if (!err && write) {
> +             /* Remove impossible cpus to keep sysctl output cleaner. */
> +             cpumask_and(&watchdog_cpumask, &watchdog_cpumask,
> +                         cpu_possible_mask);
> +
> +             if (watchdog_enabled && watchdog_thresh) {
> +                     /*
> +                      * Failure would be due to being unable to allocate
> +                      * a temporary cpumask, so we are likely not in a
> +                      * position to do much else to make things better.
> +                      */
> +                     if (smpboot_update_cpumask_percpu_thread(
> +                                 &watchdog_threads, &watchdog_cpumask) != 0)
> +                             pr_err("cpumask update failed\n");

This one does not. :-(  If there is a respin, I would suggest copying the
above message down here. 


Cheers,
Don
--
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/

Reply via email to