Re: Consider switching to WQ_UNBOUND messages (was: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] workqueue: Report work funcs that trigger automatic CPU_INTENSIVE mechanism)

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Tejun,

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 2:30 AM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 11:39:17AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 04:06:22PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 3:55 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
> > > workqueue: neigh_managed_work hogged CPU for >10000us 4 times,
> > > consider switching to WQ_UNBOUND
> >
> > I wonder whether the right thing to do here is somehow scaling the threshold
> > according to the relative processing power. It's difficult to come up with a
> > threshold which works well across the latest & fastest and really tiny CPUs.
> > I'll think about it some more but if you have some ideas, please feel free
> > to suggest.
>
> Geert, do you mind posting the full kernel logs for the affected machines?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1toDs7ugZJ2eXatpdvySY4yxSsNam9xAC
is an archive with boot and s2ram logs.  Note that my kernels do contain
local debug code, and may be noisy.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds