Re: [PATCH v4 09/10] workqueue: Implement system-wide nr_active enforcement for unbound workqueues

[Nathan Chancellor]

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@xxxxxxxxxx>

> 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