Hi Tejun On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:44 PM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello, > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:01:17AM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote: > > cnt = atomic64_inc_return_relaxed(&ent->cnt); > > - if (cnt >= 4 && is_power_of_2(cnt)) > > + if (cnt == wq_cpu_intensive_warning_nth || > > + (cnt > wq_cpu_intensive_warning_nth && is_power_of_2(cnt))) > > If we do this the nth name doesn't really make sense. Maybe something like > wq_cpu_intensive_warning_thresh is better? Also, something like the > following might be more predictable. Let's say > wq_cpu_intensive_warning_thresh of 0 disables the warnings and it's > initialized to 4 by default. > > if (cnt >= wq_cpu_intensive_warning_thresh && > is_power_of_2(cnt + 1 - wq_cpu_intensive_warning_thresh)) > This way looks simpler, but it could not disable the warnings, but I think this is okay, because even if the threshold is set to 0, the warning will only be printed when 1, 3, 7, 15.... I will send patch-v2 later as you suggested:) Thanks. BR -- xuewen
