From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from stravinsky.debian.org (stravinsky.debian.org [82.195.75.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E660D472769 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:48:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781628495; cv=none; b=oYbZnwmY3OFa4gIwuFyBu3+XqRJj2j7Q2S9eKED0nEkfKMA+zctk8wOWrUQRghQusgnfxR3f8dKDFQ9Fz9e3tEAowiyuenTtQx807O5K7qmlNQTjqxDZynC/aBEt0vq02+zJZVwN6mBNxvKuxxSNXWYkBYMJyUn+hjwKqvGr7UU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781628495; c=relaxed/simple; bh=arDMW+86oBZQObaExtdUVe4K9aOs1M78kbo+LTY7iFE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dzT3imfWuNQU+dxHSKaSDQrk7JLOxPPGWJxeVzqhBug95qWDJSl7WhV7vS2bvxDMryYqHKI7OEVQluoqMjdJOC00mUgUhCeXlVS/t4Ptq/orxG72e/TNSVfwx/GgXQifapVwUyv/EP0INdppj5AokAgpgNZxLTCPVhNvtrL/UG0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=debian.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b=cx6RHO37; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b="cx6RHO37" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debian.org; s=smtpauto.stravinsky; h=X-Debian-User:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=+CVVot2c8K8lg56AbeDAuplC+79UgCmOOPGydzFyKP8=; b=cx6RHO37YmUIEQ0wku3fucKPiY yulwi4yRkOcB9vtfXJVo4vT3tpXS+Yz526SA6CO+fC6i0yDHEj52Sm30WyrtcJianwvKQaigHOohY PXVyXAfXtIowC14nqiTuXvFBZ6hYzNOaQ5NE1R26HJjWTK9adYUnxFaEWfAprtxHE1+cq86YjTAGW 9fw+i56VfZ4Ka2CM+jxsGRkgcWGLfIf2jgnt9yoJHe1SezbfYLrJY5TU4CpwA37ROJF25dccUg75h 7vOOTkpjflRCLBp34vSIDDVy5hay5nPNOXySIsbQ9aaAK50osNMFqgbwVVZdnmojzzMlLHItzwc8p EBNV8nZA==; Received: from authenticated-user by stravinsky.debian.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wZWxM-00DzK8-18; Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:48:08 +0000 Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:48:03 -0700 From: Breno Leitao To: Petr Mladek Cc: Tejun Heo , Lai Jiangshan , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Omar Sandoval , Song Liu , Danielle Costantino , kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] workqueue: Show all busy workers in stall diagnostics Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Debian-User: leitao On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 02:57:06PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Tue 2026-06-16 05:44:12, Breno Leitao wrote: > > Hello Petr, > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 02:38:11PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > On Thu 2026-06-11 07:50:04, Breno Leitao wrote: > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I didn't get the other pr_info(), because of console settings, > > > > but, I can say the following from this issue and previous code: > > > > > > > > 1) in show_cpu_pool_hog, found_running variable is set to false. > > > > 2) hash_for_each() never found any running task > > > > 3) The following code was trigger and was very helpful: > > > > > > > > if (!found_running) > > > > trigger_single_cpu_backtrace(cpu); > > > > > > Great. So, the extra complexity was worth it. Should I clean it and > > > send a proper patch? Or would you like to do so? > > > > I am happy to do so. I had a chat with tejun yesterday, and I got the > > impression he is OK with this patch as well. > > Great! > > > > Also I wonder whether it would make sense to revert the commit > > > 8823eaef45da7f ("workqueue: Show all busy workers in stall > > > diagnostics"). > > > > This patch undo that change already. Would you like to see a full revert > > or, are you OK with this patch reverting that behaviour? Maybe with > > a fixes: tag? > > I do not mind how exactly it is done. Reworking the behavior is > perfectly fine. And the fixes tag would make sense when it was > not a full revert. Thanks. I've sent an RFC patchset for us to discuss it there. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260616-wq_dump_petr-v1-0-b57473ca6d18@debian.org/ Thanks for your help so far, --breno