linux-kernel - Re: Consider switching to WQ_UNBOUND messages (was: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] workqueue: Report work funcs that trigger automatic CPU

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZK30CR196rs-OWLq@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:30:01 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team@...a.com, Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Fbdev development list <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MMC List <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:LIBATA SUBSYSTEM (Serial and Parallel ATA drivers)" 
        <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Consider switching to WQ_UNBOUND messages (was: Re: [PATCH v2
 6/7] workqueue: Report work funcs that trigger automatic CPU_INTENSIVE
 mechanism)

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 11:39:17AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 04:06:22PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 3:55 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
...
> > workqueue: neigh_managed_work hogged CPU for >10000us 4 times,
> > consider switching to WQ_UNBOUND
> 
> I wonder whether the right thing to do here is somehow scaling the threshold
> according to the relative processing power. It's difficult to come up with a
> threshold which works well across the latest & fastest and really tiny CPUs.
> I'll think about it some more but if you have some ideas, please feel free
> to suggest.

Geert, do you mind posting the full kernel logs for the affected machines?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun