[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yt9dr0ew8uru.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:20:37 +0200
From: Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: fix selection of wake_cpu in kick_pool()
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> writes:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 07:35:49AM +0200, Sven Schnelle wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> index 0066c8f6c154..d02b0c02c9e2 100644
>> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> @@ -1277,7 +1277,8 @@ static bool kick_pool(struct worker_pool *pool)
>> !cpumask_test_cpu(p->wake_cpu, pool->attrs->__pod_cpumask)) {
>> struct work_struct *work = list_first_entry(&pool->worklist,
>> struct work_struct, entry);
>> - p->wake_cpu = cpumask_any_distribute(pool->attrs->__pod_cpumask);
>> + p->wake_cpu = cpumask_any_and_distribute(pool->attrs->__pod_cpumask,
>> + cpu_online_mask);
>
> So, this wouldn't necessarily fix the problem completely but regardless of
> how that's plugged, this is still something we want to do to avoid picking
> offline CPUs. Can you please update the patch description accordingly and
> resend?
I'll just sent v2. I didn't mention the arch_vcpu_is_preempted() issue
in the commit description, as i'm not yet sure whether that's a wrong
assumption the s390 code or in the common code. Still waiting whether
Peter has some insight.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists