Hello, On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 03:46:34PM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote: > +#ifdef CONFIG_WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE_REPORT > +static unsigned int wq_cpu_intensive_warning_per_count = 4; > +module_param_named(cpu_intensive_warning_per_count, wq_cpu_intensive_warning_per_count, uint, 0644); > +#endif wq_cpu_intensive_warning_nth is probably shorter and more idiomatic. > @@ -1202,7 +1206,7 @@ static void wq_cpu_intensive_report(work_func_t func) > * exponentially. > */ > cnt = atomic64_inc_return_relaxed(&ent->cnt); > - if (cnt >= 4 && is_power_of_2(cnt)) > + if (wq_cpu_intensive_warning_per_count && !(cnt % wq_cpu_intensive_warning_per_count)) But aren't you mostly interested in the first report? Note that these events can be very high frequency and reporting every nth event can lead to a lot of constant warnings. Wouldn't it make sense to keep the exponential backoff while allowing adjusting the initial threshold? Thanks. -- tejun
