Hello, On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 09:24:09PM +0800, Z qiang wrote: > diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c > index 9c5c1cfa478f..f8d739fef311 100644 > --- a/kernel/workqueue.c > +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c > @@ -1060,10 +1060,9 @@ void wq_worker_running(struct task_struct *task) > * and leave with an unexpected pool->nr_running == 1 on the newly > unbound > * pool. Protect against such race. > */ > - preempt_disable(); > + local_irq_disable(); > if (!(worker->flags & WORKER_NOT_RUNNING)) > worker->pool->nr_running++; > - preempt_enable(); > > /* > * CPU intensive auto-detection cares about how long a work item > hogged > @@ -1072,6 +1071,7 @@ void wq_worker_running(struct task_struct *task) > worker->current_at = worker->task->se.sum_exec_runtime; > > worker->sleeping = 0; > + local_irq_enable(); > } Ah, yeah, this is correct. Now we're modifying nr_running from timer tick too, so if don't block irq, the timer tick can ruin the not-irq-protected read-write-modify nr_running update from wq_worker_running(). Naresh, can you please confirm the fix? Thanks. -- tejun
