Re: [PATCH v3] locking/lockdep: add debug_show_all_lock_holders()

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2023/02/13 20:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> @@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ static void check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks(unsigned long timeout)
>>   unlock:
>>  	rcu_read_unlock();
>>  	if (hung_task_show_lock)
>> -		debug_show_all_locks();
>> +		debug_show_all_lock_holders();
>>  
>>  	if (hung_task_show_all_bt) {
>>  		hung_task_show_all_bt = false;
> 
> This being the hung-task detector, which is mostly about sleeping locks.

Yes, the intent of this patch is to report tasks sleeping with locks held,
for the cause of hung task is sometimes a deadlock.

>> +	rcu_read_lock();
>> +	for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
>> +		if (!p->lockdep_depth)
>> +			continue;
>> +		if (p == current && p->lockdep_depth == 1)
>> +			continue;
>> +		sched_show_task(p);
> 
> And sched_show_task() being an utter piece of crap that will basically
> print garbage for anything that's running (it doesn't have much
> options).
> 
> Should we try and do better? dump_cpu_task() prefers
> trigger_single_cpu_backtrace(), which sends an interrupt in order to get
> active registers for the CPU.

What is the intent of using trigger_single_cpu_backtrace() here?
check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks() is calling trigger_all_cpu_backtrace()
if sysctl_hung_task_all_cpu_backtrace is set. 

Locks held and kernel backtrace are helpful for describing deadlock
situation, but registers values are not. What is important is that
tasks which are not on CPUs are reported, for when a task is reported as
hung, that task must be sleeping. Therefore, I think sched_show_task()
is fine.