From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ilvokhin.com (mail.ilvokhin.com [178.62.254.231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 746C0426D2B for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2026 10:57:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.62.254.231 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786100254; cv=none; b=q2gblATRfrFZ2TxJ9tdRo9txHgDGBuNRjAbk1cIh1fRGBd9x4OQn8NKECoFrFYYls1LalNEyiT8yOpss0qOEl6aAVORYACgCP4BA2cSNdDzt+VoymTED0YADJK//yUswEPsc2eXR5F/hw76NzmRBZleQG3BOXQLdUAwsLzCXKDA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786100254; c=relaxed/simple; bh=z5DbNQ8R+sZJWTl0mHm14TlJTWJDkBe9UQTZUwGpyLo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=iAUgkqW3o4JJAN7OcI3wM1w46n2hE3qfkK+zmU3fPI+uUsIuUEQ1mrmhFtmPYDeRSpzpCE+nESgsz2P7ry5VK/mbTTTLhDz9q0UENcX3EC9uRIYCpOYAKi3rluAqiJVxxRnO8w6bw6mauPEVj4vryCB/pRh+auxP3B+eLVHtRMk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=ilvokhin.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ilvokhin.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ilvokhin.com header.i=@ilvokhin.com header.b=g2FciW+6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.62.254.231 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=ilvokhin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ilvokhin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ilvokhin.com header.i=@ilvokhin.com header.b="g2FciW+6" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ilvokhin.com; s=mail; t=1786100245; bh=EdhGQVy6xeITgRaKZzgd1b2BjEq7ubga/1BDU567Q+c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=g2FciW+6eBvFWGhbyVowFUOJNjdWP4hGfnyNrStOGI9vP/Hl+9tKtK38DleZ+4XKB dbFp4YKnpp5doyI1Npfvh9wvTLPZykPWAkP+EYxG7CotTprH3dJBgazdA4aWkTprYN 25mXZK/i5CjQnvPZNQlN0fOgMk/3/bpBBWAEl5CI= Received: from shell.ilvokhin.com (shell.ilvokhin.com [138.68.190.75]) (Authenticated sender: d@ilvokhin.com) by mail.ilvokhin.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 257C5E1989; Fri, 07 Aug 2026 10:57:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2026 10:57:21 +0000 From: Dmitry Ilvokhin To: Breno Leitao Cc: paulmck@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , kernel-team@meta.com, Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/csd-lock: Report how long a stuck CSD lock took to recover Message-ID: References: <20260805-csd-stall-duration-v1-1-71134fafe150@debian.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260805-csd-stall-duration-v1-1-71134fafe150@debian.org> On Wed, Aug 05, 2026 at 05:51:54AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote: > /* > * Complain if too much time spent waiting. Note that only > * the CSD_TYPE_SYNC/ASYNC types provide the destination CPU, > * so waiting on other types gets much less information. > */ > -static bool csd_lock_wait_toolong(call_single_data_t *csd, u64 ts0, u64 *ts1, int *bug_id, unsigned long *nmessages) > +static bool csd_lock_wait_toolong(call_single_data_t *csd, u64 ts0, u64 *ts1, u64 *ts_resend, > + int *bug_id, unsigned long *nmessages) nit: csd_lock_wait_toolong() has too many arguments now to my liking. This was already a bit awkward before, maybe it is time for a small clean up. Does it make sense to pack timestamps, bug_id and nmessages into a struct and pass it around instead? That could go in as a separate cleanup ahead of this one. Other than that, it looks reasonable to me. With or without that: Reviewed-by: Dmitry Ilvokhin