From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Michal Koutny <mkoutny@suse.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] workqueue: Print backtraces from CPUs with hung CPU bound workqueues
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 15:26:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y90ZnFNT+4XS2PlH@alley> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y9xLAdc9ODyEO+RQ@slm.duckdns.org>
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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-03 14:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-01 13:45 [RFC 0/5] workqueue: Debugging improvements Petr Mladek
2023-02-01 13:45 ` [RFC 1/5] workqueue: Fix hung time report of worker pools Petr Mladek
2023-02-01 13:45 ` [RFC 2/5] workqueue: Warn when a new worker could not be created Petr Mladek
2023-02-02 23:30 ` Tejun Heo
2023-02-03 14:10 ` Petr Mladek
2023-02-03 19:29 ` Tejun Heo
2023-02-15 18:02 ` Michal Koutný
2023-02-16 9:43 ` Petr Mladek
2023-02-01 13:45 ` [RFC 3/5] workqueue: Interrupted create_worker() is not a repeated event Petr Mladek
2023-02-01 13:45 ` [RFC 4/5] workqueue: Warn when a rescuer could not be created Petr Mladek
2023-02-01 13:45 ` [RFC 5/5] workqueue: Print backtraces from CPUs with hung CPU bound workqueues Petr Mladek
2023-02-02 23:45 ` Tejun Heo
2023-02-03 14:26 ` Petr Mladek [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y90ZnFNT+4XS2PlH@alley \
--to=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®