Hello, On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 02:34:50PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > Tejun, while we are at it, shall we also touch NMI in show_workqueue_state()? > I suppose that show_pwq() can be quite verbose on some systems, can't it? > > for instance: sysrq-t [irq] -> show_workqueue_state()
Ah, it's less likely but definitely possible. > diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c > index 9960f8842b31..649c00a9af12 100644 > --- a/kernel/workqueue.c > +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c > @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ > #include <linux/moduleparam.h> > #include <linux/uaccess.h> > #include <linux/sched/isolation.h> > +#include <linux/nmi.h> > > #include "workqueue_internal.h" > > @@ -4473,6 +4474,8 @@ void show_workqueue_state(void) > if (pwq->nr_active || !list_empty(&pwq->delayed_works)) > show_pwq(pwq); > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pwq->pool->lock, flags); > + > + touch_nmi_watchdog(); Can you send a patch w/ signed-off-by adding touch_nmi_watchdog() to both outer loops in that function. Theoretically, we can have a lot of pools too. Thanks. -- tejun
