On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 03:32:59PM +0200, Michal Koutny wrote: > Hello. > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 06:21:55PM GMT, chenridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yes, I have offered the scripts in Link(V1). > > Thanks (and thanks for patience). > There is no lockdep complain about a deadlock (i.e. some circular > locking dependencies). (I admit the multiple holders of cgroup_mutex > reported there confuse me, I guess that's an artifact of this lockdep > report and they could be also waiters.) > > ... > > The change on its own (deferred cgroup bpf progs removal via > cgroup_destroy_wq instead of system_wq) is sensible by collecting > related objects removal together (at the same time it shouldn't cause > problems by sharing one cgroup_destroy_wq). > > But the reasoning in the commit message doesn't add up to me. There > isn't obvious deadlock, I'd say that system is overloaded with repeated > calls of __lockup_detector_reconfigure() and it is not in deadlock > state -- i.e. when you stop the test, it should eventually recover. Thanks, Michal! I've exactly same feelings about this change.
