On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 07:47:09AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 10:40:05AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 10:26:49AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 03:08:45PM +0200, Vasily Gorbik wrote:
> > > > Commit 61bbcfb50514 ("srcu: Push srcu_node allocation to GP when
> > > > non-preemptible") defers srcu_node tree allocation when called under
> > > > raw spinlock, putting SRCU through ~6 transitional grace periods
> > > > (SRCU_SIZE_ALLOC to SRCU_SIZE_BIG). During this transition srcu_gp_end()
> > > > uses mask = ~0, which makes srcu_schedule_cbs_snp() call queue_work_on()
> > > > for every possible CPU. Since rcu_gp_wq is WQ_PERCPU, work targets
> > > > per-CPU pools directly - pools for not-online CPUs have no workers,
> > > 
> > > [Cc workqueue]
> > > 
> > > Hmm.. I thought for offline CPUs the corresponding worker pools become a
> > > unbound one hence there are still workers?
> > > 
> > 
> > Ah, as Paul replied in another email, the problem was because these CPUs
> > had never been onlined, so they don't even have unbound workers?
> 
> Hahaha, we do initialize worker pool for every possible CPU but the
> transition to unbound operation happens in the hot unplug callback. We
> probably need to do some of the hot unplug operation during init if the CPU
> is possible but not online. That said, what kind of machine is it? Is the
> firmware just reporting bogus possible mask? How come the CPUs weren't
> online during boot?

Just saw ibm on the cc list. Guess this was on s390?

-- 
tejun