public inbox for linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
	rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	samir@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: BUG: workqueue lockup - SRCU schedules work on not-online CPUs during size transition
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 20:30:38 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <afIdFgDD9w2U6hZy@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <adlHKowvhn8AGXCc@slm.duckdns.org>

* Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> [2026-04-10 08:53:30]:

Hi Tejun,

[ copying Samir Mulani to this thread ]

> Hello,
> 
> > Seems that we (mostly Paul) have our own trick to track whether a CPU
> > has ever been onlined in RCU, see rcu_cpu_beenfullyonline(). Paul also
> > used it in his fix [1]. And I think it won't be that hard to copy it
> > into workqueue and let queue_work_on() use it so that if the user queues
> > a work on a never-onlined CPU, it can detect it (with a warning?) and do
> > something?
> 
> The easiest way to do this is just creating the initial workers for all
> possible pools. Please see below. However, the downside is that it's going
> to create all workers for all possible cpus. This isn't a problem for
> anybody else but these IBM mainframes often come up with a lot of possible
> but not-yet-or-ever-online CPUs for capacity management, so the cost may not
> be negligible on some configurations.
> 
> IBM folks, is that okay?

Even on PowerPC LPARS, its not uncommon to have possible cpus != online cpus
at boot.  However your approach will work.

And Samir has already tested the same too and reported here
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1b89c25b-7c1d-4ed8-adf3-ac504b6f086a@linux.ibm.com

> 
> Also, why do you need to queue work items on an offline CPU? Do they
> actually have to be per-cpu? Can you get away with using an unbound
> workqueue?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Subject: workqueue: Create workers for all possible CPUs on init
> 
> Per-CPU worker pools are initialized for every possible CPU during early boot,
> but workqueue_init() only creates initial workers for online CPUs. On systems
> where possible CPUs outnumber online CPUs (e.g. s390 LPARs with 76 online and
> 400 possible CPUs), the pools for never-onlined CPUs have POOL_DISASSOCIATED
> set but no workers. Any work item queued on such a CPU hangs indefinitely.
> 
> This was exposed by 61bbcfb50514 ("srcu: Push srcu_node allocation to GP when
> non-preemptible") which made SRCU schedule callbacks on all possible CPUs
> during size transitions, triggering workqueue lockup warnings for all
> never-onlined CPUs.
> 
> Create workers for all possible CPUs during init, not just online ones. For
> online CPUs, the behavior is unchanged - POOL_DISASSOCIATED is cleared and the
> worker is bound to the CPU. For not-yet-online CPUs, POOL_DISASSOCIATED
> remains set, so worker_attach_to_pool() marks the worker UNBOUND and it can
> execute on any CPU. When the CPU later comes online, rebind_workers() handles
> the transition to associated operation as usual.
> 

With these patch, if a CPU has been onlined once, it's should be ok to queue
the work on that CPU even if its offline now.

> Reported-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>

Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.ibm.com>

> ---
>  kernel/workqueue.c |    5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -8068,9 +8068,10 @@ void __init workqueue_init(void)
>  		for_each_bh_worker_pool(pool, cpu)
>  			BUG_ON(!create_worker(pool));
> 
> -	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>  		for_each_cpu_worker_pool(pool, cpu) {
> -			pool->flags &= ~POOL_DISASSOCIATED;
> +			if (cpu_online(cpu))
> +				pool->flags &= ~POOL_DISASSOCIATED;
>  			BUG_ON(!create_worker(pool));
>  		}
>  	}
> -- 
> tejun

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-04-29 15:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-04-09 13:08 BUG: workqueue lockup - SRCU schedules work on not-online CPUs during size transition Vasily Gorbik
2026-04-09 17:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-09 19:15   ` Vasily Gorbik
2026-04-09 20:10     ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-10  4:03       ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-14 19:24         ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-29 17:50           ` Vasily Gorbik
2026-04-29 18:05             ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-29 18:23               ` Vasily Gorbik
2026-04-09 17:26 ` Boqun Feng
2026-04-09 17:40   ` Boqun Feng
2026-04-09 17:47     ` Tejun Heo
2026-04-09 17:48       ` Tejun Heo
2026-04-09 18:04         ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-09 18:09           ` Tejun Heo
2026-04-09 18:15             ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-09 18:10       ` Boqun Feng
2026-04-09 18:27         ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-10 18:53         ` Tejun Heo
2026-04-10 19:17           ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-10 19:29             ` Tejun Heo
2026-04-29 15:00           ` Srikar Dronamraju [this message]
2026-04-29 17:08             ` Vasily Gorbik
2026-04-29 17:18               ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-29 17:44                 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-04-29 18:01                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-29 18:17           ` Samir M

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=afIdFgDD9w2U6hZy@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=srikar@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=boqun@kernel.org \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=samir@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=urezki@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox