Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:29:11 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc:     torvalds@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] workqueue: Automatically mark CPU-hogging work items
 CPU_INTENSIVE
Message-ID: <ZEagR7GYUsPN46wm@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20230418205159.724789-1-tj@kernel.org>
 <20230418205159.724789-5-tj@kernel.org>
 <CAJhGHyDWJAZj6AYKHpJvTPdRCZa7Yvi00x1n+AtRm1qa_2PmOw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJhGHyDWJAZj6AYKHpJvTPdRCZa7Yvi00x1n+AtRm1qa_2PmOw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello, Lai.

On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 11:23:28AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> wq_worker_stopping() and sched_submit_work() are only called from
> schedule() and are not called for other various kinds of scheduling,
> such as schedule_rtlock(), preempt_schedule_*(), __cond_resched().
> 
> A work item hogging CPU may not call the bare schedule().  To make
> the new wq_worker_stopping() works, it has to be added to other kinds
> of scheduling, IMO.

Yeah, you're right. The proposed code would work fine only on !preempt
kernels. I guess the right thing to do is splitting out the hook for
non-sleeping schedulers and adding them in those paths. I'll look into it.

Thanks for spotting the issue.

-- 
tejun