From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754139Ab3CRRIN (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:08:13 -0400
Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:8011 "EHLO
	hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752725Ab3CRRIJ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:08:09 -0400
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=BZhaI8R2 c=1 sm=0 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:17 a=mNMOxpOpBa8A:10 a=nGpB3NLV4dgA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=xnoB05DE7xsA:10 a=nUuTZ29dAAAA:8 a=JMHDMQobqHCFS0Ksch4A:9 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:117
X-Cloudmark-Score: 0
X-Authenticated-User: 
X-Originating-IP: 74.67.115.198
Message-ID: <1363626487.25967.186.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Subject: Re: workqueue code needing preemption disabled
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, RT <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        Clark Williams <clark@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:08:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20130318164351.GA21516@mtj.dyndns.org>
References: <1363617383.25967.152.camel@gandalf.local.home>
	 <20130318160652.GA20133@mtj.dyndns.org>
	 <1363623799.25967.172.camel@gandalf.local.home>
	 <1363624020.25967.175.camel@gandalf.local.home>
	 <1363624243.25967.178.camel@gandalf.local.home>
	 <20130318164351.GA21516@mtj.dyndns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-2 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 09:43 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:

> Making gcwq locks disable preemption would be much safer / easier, but
> if that's not desirable, anything touching gcwq->idle_list would be a
> good place to start - worker_enter_idle() and worker_leave_idle().
> Hmmm... ignoring CPU hotplug, I think those two might just do it.
> Give it a try?  How reproducible is the problem?

Not very :-( I triggered it twice on a 40 CPU box. It can go
approximately 1 month before it triggers. And the box we are testing on
is currently a loaner, and we have it on extension right now. Which
means we wont have it much longer.

But perhaps that's the place to fix things.

Thanks,

-- Steve