From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932138AbdHWOY3 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:24:29 -0400
Received: from mail-qt0-f179.google.com ([209.85.216.179]:34142 "EHLO
        mail-qt0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754087AbdHWOY1 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:24:27 -0400
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:24:22 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] workqueue fixes for v4.13-rc3
Message-ID: <20170823142421.GK491396@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
References: <20170731153806.GC447614@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <CAMuHMdUOoKAB9RXWF3gkEf6m0ww1XrYWL6QGzV6ucLQuOX3rUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170807170659.GB537256@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <CAMuHMdUGBug70nFxb7C0cyn7u2Q6Yoz4sONDtxHeV9H7stNYQw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdUGBug70nFxb7C0cyn7u2Q6Yoz4sONDtxHeV9H7stNYQw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello, Geert.

Something is really fishy.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:10:54AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > +               pr_warn_once("WARNING: workqueue empty cpumask: node=%d cpu_going_down=%d cpumask=%*pb online=%*pb possible=%*pb\n",
> > +                            node, cpu_going_down, cpumask_pr_args(attrs->cpumask),
> > +                            cpumask_pr_args(cpumask_of_node(node)),
> > +                            cpumask_pr_args(wq_numa_possible_cpumask[node]));
> 
> WARNING: workqueue empty cpumask: node=1 cpu_going_down=-1 cpumask=1
> online=1 possible=0

So, somehow cpu0 seems to be associated with node 1 instead of 0.  It
seems highly unlikely but does the system actually have multiple NUMA
nodes?

> > @@ -5526,6 +5528,9 @@ static void __init wq_numa_init(void)
> >
> >         wq_numa_possible_cpumask = tbl;
> >         wq_numa_enabled = true;
> > +
> > +       for_each_node(node)
> > +               printk("XXX wq node[%d] %*pb\n", node, cpumask_pr_args(wq_numa_possible_cpumask[node]));
> 
> XXX wq node[0] 1
> XXX wq node[1] 0
> XXX wq node[2] 0
> XXX wq node[3] 0
> XXX wq node[4] 0
> XXX wq node[5] 0
> XXX wq node[6] 0
> XXX wq node[7] 0

No idea why num_possible_cpus() is 8 on a non-SMP system but the
problem is that, during boot while wq_numa_init() was running, cpu0
reported that it's associated with node 0, but later it reports that
it's associated node 1.  It looks like NUMA setup is screwed up.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun