* Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > do you realize that more than 120 seconds TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE _is_
> > something that most humans consider as "buggy" in the overwhelming
> > majority of cases, regardless of the reason? Yes, there are and will
> > be some exceptions, but not nearly as countless as you try to paint
> > it. A quick test in the next -mm will give us a good idea about the
> > ratio of false positives.
>
> That would assume error paths get regularly exercised in -mm.
> Doubtful. Most likely we'll only hear about it after it's out in the
> wild on some bigger release.
by that argument we could never include _anything_ in -mm because ...
only some bigger release would excercise error paths?
Your argument makes no objective sense to me - my patch is a
non-intrusive debugging facility that people clearly find useful and
that would increase the quality of kernel bugreporting.
If, contrary to expectation, it decreases kernel bugreporting quality
then we'll disable it quickly - just like we did it with other debugging
facilities that were causing more trouble than good. (suck as the stack
unwinder code)
In fact it can already by disabled easily, from user-space, without any
kernel change, by doing:
echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs
and there you go, no warnings at all. Or you can add this to
/etc/sysctl.conf to disable it permanently:
kernel.hung_task_timeout_secs = 0
or you can disable it in the .config. So i dont see your problem. It's
just like most other debug facilities. (in fact it's more flexible than
most other debug facilities)
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
