[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y90ZnFNT+4XS2PlH@alley>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 15:26:36 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Michal Koutny <mkoutny@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] workqueue: Print backtraces from CPUs with hung CPU
bound workqueues
Hello,
On Thu 2023-02-02 13:45:05, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > +static bool show_pool_suspicious_workers(struct worker_pool *pool, bool shown_title)
> > +{
> > + bool shown_any = false;
> > + struct worker *worker;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + int bkt;
> > +
> > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pool->lock, flags);
> > +
> > + if (pool->cpu < 0)
> > + goto out;
>
> This can be tested before grabbling the lock.
I see.
> > + if (!per_cpu(wq_watchdog_hung_cpu, pool->cpu))
> > + goto out;
>
> Given that the state is per-pool, would it make sense to mark this on the
> pool instead?
Makes sense. I think that I started with the per-CPU variable before
I sorted my thoughts about what backtraces were useful ;-)
> > + if (list_empty(&pool->worklist))
> > + goto out;
>
> This condition isn't really necessary, right?
IMHO, it should be there. The watchdog reports the problem only when
there are pending work items, see
if (list_empty(&pool->worklist))
continue;
in wq_watchdog_timer_fn().
My understanding is that it is OK to process work items longer
time when they are sleeping and waiting for something.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists