Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:42:54 -0700 | From | Nathan Chancellor <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 09/10] workqueue: Implement system-wide nr_active enforcement for unbound workqueues |
| |
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 06:24:51PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 09:20:31PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 06:13:02PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 09:12:05PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > > > Hi Tejun, > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 06:02:52PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the report. Can you please test whether the following patch fixes > > > > > the problem? > > > > > > > > I just tested this change on top of 5797b1c18919 but it does not appear > > > > to resolve the issue for any of the three configurations that I tested. > > > > > > Bummer. Can you map the faulting address to the source line? > > > > Sure, here is the arm64 stacktrace run through > > scripts/decode_stacktrace.sh, the line numbers correspond to your tree > > at 5797b1c18919. > > Ah, I see. How about the following? > > Thanks.
That works for three easy to test configurations that were broken, thanks!
Tested-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c > index 9221a4c57ae1..31c1373505d8 100644 > --- a/kernel/workqueue.c > +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c > @@ -1510,7 +1510,7 @@ static void wq_update_node_max_active(struct workqueue_struct *wq, int off_cpu) > > lockdep_assert_held(&wq->mutex); > > - if (!cpumask_test_cpu(off_cpu, effective)) > + if (off_cpu >= 0 && !cpumask_test_cpu(off_cpu, effective)) > off_cpu = -1; > > total_cpus = cpumask_weight_and(effective, cpu_online_mask); > > -- > tejun
| |