Re: Consider switching to WQ_UNBOUND messages (was: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] workqueue: Report work funcs that trigger automatic CPU_INTENSIVE mechanism)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 11:39:17AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 04:06:22PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 3:55 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > workqueue: neigh_managed_work hogged CPU for >10000us 4 times,
> > consider switching to WQ_UNBOUND
> I wonder whether the right thing to do here is somehow scaling the threshold
> according to the relative processing power. It's difficult to come up with a
> threshold which works well across the latest & fastest and really tiny CPUs.
> I'll think about it some more but if you have some ideas, please feel free
> to suggest.

Geert, do you mind posting the full kernel logs for the affected machines?



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Memonry Technology]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux