[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1455040613.3604.11.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 18:56:53 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Bilik <daniel.bilik@...system.cz>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Crashes with 874bbfe600a6 in 3.18.25
On Tue, 2016-02-09 at 12:54 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Mike.
>
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 06:04:04PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > workqueue: schedule WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work on wq_unbound_cpumask
> > CPUs
> >
> > WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work items queued to a bound workqueue always run
> > locally. This is a good thing normally, but not when the user has
> > asked us to keep unbound work away from certain CPUs. Round robin
> > these to wq_unbound_cpumask CPUs instead, as perturbation avoidance
> > trumps performance.
>
> I don't think doing this by default for everyone is a good idea. A
> lot of workqueue usages tend to touch whatever the scheduler was
> touching after all. Doing things per-cpu is generally a pretty good
> thing.
It doesn't do anything unless the user twiddles the mask to exclude
certain (think no_hz_full) CPUs, so there are no clueless victims.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists