Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 32/41] rcu: Update stall-warningdocumentation
From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Fri Feb 03 2012 - 00:59:04 EST
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 09:42:58PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 10:18:05AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:56:39PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:41:50AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Add documentation of CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_VERBOSE, CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_INFO,
> > > > and RCU_STALL_DELAY_DELTA. Describe multiple stall-warning messages from
> > > > a single stall, and the timing of the subsequent messages. Add headings.
> > >
> > > Don't some of these documentation changes go with earlier patches in
> > > this series?
> > Some could, but there is a fair amount of catch-up here. Since we don't
> > need documentation to be bisectable, it makes sense to do a single
> > commit to update the documentation.
> I think we've actually had this particular conversation once for each of
> the last few rounds of patches. :)
> I agree that documentation doesn't have to allow bisection, but I do
> think it generally makes sense to add documentation together with
> whatever change it documents whenever possible. Among other things,
> doing so makes a series of patches much easier to rearrange and merge.
> When documenting things that previously had no documentation, and didn't
> appear in the same patch series, it makes sense to have a separate
> commit to add documentation. I'd just suggest that when documenting
> things added or changed in the same patch series, the documentation
> should go with the addition or change.
And I did do that for several of the patches -- my new-found KVM testing
capability makes it much more convenient to do that. But if I see that
a documentation file is a year or so behind, I don't feel obligated to
backport pieces of the changes to previous patches that happened recently
enough to not yet be in -tip.
> > > Also, this commit message doesn't say anything about the removal of
> > > RCU_SECONDS_TILL_STALL_RECHECK:
> > >
> > > > --- a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.txt
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.txt
> > > > @@ -14,12 +14,36 @@ CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_TIMEOUT
> > > > issues an RCU CPU stall warning. This time period is normally
> > > > ten seconds.
> > > >
> > > > -RCU_SECONDS_TILL_STALL_RECHECK
> > > [...]
> > > > - This macro defines the period of time that RCU will wait after
> > > > - issuing a stall warning until it issues another stall warning
> > > > - for the same stall. This time period is normally set to three
> > > > - times the check interval plus thirty seconds.
> > It is now computed from CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_TIMEOUT, which has an old
> > value for default, which is now fixed. I will add the rationale for
> > removing CONFIG_RCU_SECONDS_TILL_STALL_RECHECK to the commit message.
> - Josh Triplett
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/