On 01/18/2018 08:32 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 4:08 AM, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
On 01/16/2018 11:05 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Neeraj.
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 02:08:12PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
- kworker/0:0 gets chance to run on cpu1; while processing
a wo
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 4:08 AM, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>
>
> On 01/16/2018 11:05 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>
>> Hello, Neeraj.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 02:08:12PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>>>
>>> - kworker/0:0 gets chance to run on cpu1; while processing
>>>a work, it goes to sleep. How
On 01/16/2018 11:05 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Neeraj.
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 02:08:12PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
- kworker/0:0 gets chance to run on cpu1; while processing
a work, it goes to sleep. However, it does not decrement
pool->nr_running. This is because WORKER_REBOUND (
Hello, Neeraj.
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 02:08:12PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> - kworker/0:0 gets chance to run on cpu1; while processing
> a work, it goes to sleep. However, it does not decrement
> pool->nr_running. This is because WORKER_REBOUND (NOT_
> RUNNING) flag was cleared, when w
There is a potential race b/w rebind_workers() and
wakeup of a worker thread, which can result in
workqueue lockup for a bounder worker pool.
Below is the potential race:
- cpu0 is a bounded worker pool, which is unbound
from its cpu. A new work is queued on this pool,
which causes its worker
5 matches
Mail list logo