From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com [148.163.129.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B67E942643E for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2026 16:04:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.129.49 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783440242; cv=none; b=ikydry9EVoUgyPG/PYVpIY5Qor3eXyqn4T7VjF6ypw2Xl3ecYUVBgjAYd77Ja36RQyQ/xr3gdhLYfuMuvOYuexh9ewPCfFnshJLjJjihXaEGuphweSEDiWk5bXG3KA0U7f71EXxSGyd49pGx+Pe0vv9IXEFiD5jVJ0zJcYytyyI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783440242; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XgqxS2XoxoIYcK1OA4cx5tmcQAwt5VbpXjPrpsqCZt4=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Fn8pYBOjOsVXjhCcwX2tIwBRhsWZWuzoMUjGxYT4769Pp2nSvb9CmYHExAKaqTxrx3dYajAdZTIhEJKCMC7zEWlIltDo6n8McNqqzp0pQDKoark0aB8J4lK8rognI3C8VGKsrjT2kHEmfP1S/FlqYdhw/Ef75PeqFiQxpw2Fmmk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=candelatech.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=candelatech.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=candelatech.com header.i=@candelatech.com header.b=o1/NP6Pl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.129.49 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=candelatech.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=candelatech.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=candelatech.com header.i=@candelatech.com header.b="o1/NP6Pl" X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine Received: from mail3.candelatech.com (mail.candelatech.com [208.74.158.173]) by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id 69AF9700077; Tue, 7 Jul 2026 16:03:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.100.159] (firewall.candelatech.com [50.251.239.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.candelatech.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07CC813C2B3; Tue, 7 Jul 2026 09:03:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail3.candelatech.com 07CC813C2B3 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=candelatech.com; s=default; t=1783440236; bh=XgqxS2XoxoIYcK1OA4cx5tmcQAwt5VbpXjPrpsqCZt4=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=o1/NP6Plw9pVPANRMK1uNVJrmn1V/BTlbhzjC0S5zuwfDzTH3qY7s3mQZte6BA712 cad6mNLYGjjST/LVzSDFTTkjZWEEAAgigT6BaEthd1KdqeD4Ugf6s5K6fw2E8zKO9G HSTXKo1K7KXZpUbYUdlator4VVBfWzHK54fpvU8k= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 09:03:55 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: cfg80211: reinit wiphy work entries on runaway drain Content-Language: en-US To: Cen Zhang Cc: Johannes Berg , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, baijiaju1990@gmail.com References: <20260707134925.106972-1-zzzccc427@gmail.com> From: Ben Greear Organization: Candela Technologies In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MDID: 1783440239-TvETyUA6uHw4 X-PPE-STACK: {"stack":"us5"} X-MDID-O: us5;ut7;1783440239;TvETyUA6uHw4;;42964693c53d782159cd6d1d1559cb6f X-PPE-TRUSTED: V=1;DIR=OUT; On 7/7/26 08:47, Cen Zhang wrote: > Hi Ben, > > Thanks for your review and comments. > >> Even this likely leaves the system in a bad state since requested work >> items would be skipped. Probably should also increase runaway_limit quite >> a bit as well (that has worked OK for me), maybe remove it entirely. > > Fair. Hitting the guard still means pending work gets skipped; this patch only > avoids leaving those work entries with stale list links after the > existing drop path. > > I was hesitant to remove the guard in the same change, because the > flush-all paths run under the wiphy mutex, and a work item that keeps > requeueing itself could otherwise keep flush, suspend, or unregister > stuck there. Raising the limit sounds less risky, but I would want a > concrete reason for the new value rather than picking one arbitrarily.. Yeah, you have a good point. I'm not sure of a proper solution. I set my limit to 200 and was no longer able to reproduce warning splats. Your patch may certainly be an improvement. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com