Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:25:29 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: silence soft lockups from unlock_page
Message-ID: <20200721112529.GJ4061@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20200721063258.17140-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <FCC3EB2D-9F11-4E9E-88F4-40B2926B35CC@lca.pw>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <FCC3EB2D-9F11-4E9E-88F4-40B2926B35CC@lca.pw>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 21-07-20 07:10:14, Qian Cai wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jul 21, 2020, at 2:33 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > on a large ppc machine. The very likely cause is a suboptimal
> > configuration when systed-udev spawns way too many workders to bring the
> > system up.
> 
> This is strange. The problem description is missing quite a few
> important details. For example, what systems exactly are those? How
> many CPUs, memory and NUMA nodes were you talking about?

Are these really important? I believe I can dig that out from the bug
report but I didn't really consider that important enough.

> Which kernel version was it reported?

It is a SLES 4.12 based kernel with the said commit backported. The page
lock internals are thus in line with the upstream kernel.

> How many workers from systemd-udev was “misconfigured”?

I do not know that information. I believe that it used whatever systemd
comes with as a default. And that can be a lot.

Do you have any actual feedback to the patch?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs