| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 1 |  | 
 | 2 | Concurrency Managed Workqueue (cmwq) | 
 | 3 |  | 
 | 4 | September, 2010		Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> | 
 | 5 | 			Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org> | 
 | 6 |  | 
 | 7 | CONTENTS | 
 | 8 |  | 
 | 9 | 1. Introduction | 
 | 10 | 2. Why cmwq? | 
 | 11 | 3. The Design | 
 | 12 | 4. Application Programming Interface (API) | 
 | 13 | 5. Example Execution Scenarios | 
 | 14 | 6. Guidelines | 
| Florian Mickler | e2de9e0 | 2011-03-31 13:40:42 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 15 | 7. Debugging | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 16 |  | 
 | 17 |  | 
 | 18 | 1. Introduction | 
 | 19 |  | 
 | 20 | There are many cases where an asynchronous process execution context | 
 | 21 | is needed and the workqueue (wq) API is the most commonly used | 
 | 22 | mechanism for such cases. | 
 | 23 |  | 
 | 24 | When such an asynchronous execution context is needed, a work item | 
 | 25 | describing which function to execute is put on a queue.  An | 
 | 26 | independent thread serves as the asynchronous execution context.  The | 
 | 27 | queue is called workqueue and the thread is called worker. | 
 | 28 |  | 
 | 29 | While there are work items on the workqueue the worker executes the | 
 | 30 | functions associated with the work items one after the other.  When | 
 | 31 | there is no work item left on the workqueue the worker becomes idle. | 
 | 32 | When a new work item gets queued, the worker begins executing again. | 
 | 33 |  | 
 | 34 |  | 
 | 35 | 2. Why cmwq? | 
 | 36 |  | 
 | 37 | In the original wq implementation, a multi threaded (MT) wq had one | 
 | 38 | worker thread per CPU and a single threaded (ST) wq had one worker | 
 | 39 | thread system-wide.  A single MT wq needed to keep around the same | 
 | 40 | number of workers as the number of CPUs.  The kernel grew a lot of MT | 
 | 41 | wq users over the years and with the number of CPU cores continuously | 
 | 42 | rising, some systems saturated the default 32k PID space just booting | 
 | 43 | up. | 
 | 44 |  | 
 | 45 | Although MT wq wasted a lot of resource, the level of concurrency | 
 | 46 | provided was unsatisfactory.  The limitation was common to both ST and | 
 | 47 | MT wq albeit less severe on MT.  Each wq maintained its own separate | 
 | 48 | worker pool.  A MT wq could provide only one execution context per CPU | 
 | 49 | while a ST wq one for the whole system.  Work items had to compete for | 
 | 50 | those very limited execution contexts leading to various problems | 
 | 51 | including proneness to deadlocks around the single execution context. | 
 | 52 |  | 
 | 53 | The tension between the provided level of concurrency and resource | 
 | 54 | usage also forced its users to make unnecessary tradeoffs like libata | 
 | 55 | choosing to use ST wq for polling PIOs and accepting an unnecessary | 
 | 56 | limitation that no two polling PIOs can progress at the same time.  As | 
 | 57 | MT wq don't provide much better concurrency, users which require | 
 | 58 | higher level of concurrency, like async or fscache, had to implement | 
 | 59 | their own thread pool. | 
 | 60 |  | 
 | 61 | Concurrency Managed Workqueue (cmwq) is a reimplementation of wq with | 
 | 62 | focus on the following goals. | 
 | 63 |  | 
 | 64 | * Maintain compatibility with the original workqueue API. | 
 | 65 |  | 
 | 66 | * Use per-CPU unified worker pools shared by all wq to provide | 
 | 67 |   flexible level of concurrency on demand without wasting a lot of | 
 | 68 |   resource. | 
 | 69 |  | 
 | 70 | * Automatically regulate worker pool and level of concurrency so that | 
 | 71 |   the API users don't need to worry about such details. | 
 | 72 |  | 
 | 73 |  | 
 | 74 | 3. The Design | 
 | 75 |  | 
 | 76 | In order to ease the asynchronous execution of functions a new | 
 | 77 | abstraction, the work item, is introduced. | 
 | 78 |  | 
 | 79 | A work item is a simple struct that holds a pointer to the function | 
 | 80 | that is to be executed asynchronously.  Whenever a driver or subsystem | 
 | 81 | wants a function to be executed asynchronously it has to set up a work | 
 | 82 | item pointing to that function and queue that work item on a | 
 | 83 | workqueue. | 
 | 84 |  | 
 | 85 | Special purpose threads, called worker threads, execute the functions | 
 | 86 | off of the queue, one after the other.  If no work is queued, the | 
 | 87 | worker threads become idle.  These worker threads are managed in so | 
 | 88 | called thread-pools. | 
 | 89 |  | 
 | 90 | The cmwq design differentiates between the user-facing workqueues that | 
 | 91 | subsystems and drivers queue work items on and the backend mechanism | 
| Tejun Heo | 3270476 | 2012-07-13 22:16:45 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 92 | which manages thread-pools and processes the queued work items. | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 93 |  | 
 | 94 | The backend is called gcwq.  There is one gcwq for each possible CPU | 
| Tejun Heo | 3270476 | 2012-07-13 22:16:45 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 95 | and one gcwq to serve work items queued on unbound workqueues.  Each | 
 | 96 | gcwq has two thread-pools - one for normal work items and the other | 
 | 97 | for high priority ones. | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 98 |  | 
 | 99 | Subsystems and drivers can create and queue work items through special | 
 | 100 | workqueue API functions as they see fit. They can influence some | 
 | 101 | aspects of the way the work items are executed by setting flags on the | 
 | 102 | workqueue they are putting the work item on. These flags include | 
| Tejun Heo | 3270476 | 2012-07-13 22:16:45 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 103 | things like CPU locality, reentrancy, concurrency limits, priority and | 
 | 104 | more.  To get a detailed overview refer to the API description of | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 105 | alloc_workqueue() below. | 
 | 106 |  | 
| Tejun Heo | 3270476 | 2012-07-13 22:16:45 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 107 | When a work item is queued to a workqueue, the target gcwq and | 
 | 108 | thread-pool is determined according to the queue parameters and | 
 | 109 | workqueue attributes and appended on the shared worklist of the | 
 | 110 | thread-pool.  For example, unless specifically overridden, a work item | 
 | 111 | of a bound workqueue will be queued on the worklist of either normal | 
 | 112 | or highpri thread-pool of the gcwq that is associated to the CPU the | 
 | 113 | issuer is running on. | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 114 |  | 
 | 115 | For any worker pool implementation, managing the concurrency level | 
 | 116 | (how many execution contexts are active) is an important issue.  cmwq | 
 | 117 | tries to keep the concurrency at a minimal but sufficient level. | 
 | 118 | Minimal to save resources and sufficient in that the system is used at | 
 | 119 | its full capacity. | 
 | 120 |  | 
| Tejun Heo | 3270476 | 2012-07-13 22:16:45 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 121 | Each thread-pool bound to an actual CPU implements concurrency | 
 | 122 | management by hooking into the scheduler.  The thread-pool is notified | 
 | 123 | whenever an active worker wakes up or sleeps and keeps track of the | 
 | 124 | number of the currently runnable workers.  Generally, work items are | 
 | 125 | not expected to hog a CPU and consume many cycles.  That means | 
 | 126 | maintaining just enough concurrency to prevent work processing from | 
 | 127 | stalling should be optimal.  As long as there are one or more runnable | 
 | 128 | workers on the CPU, the thread-pool doesn't start execution of a new | 
 | 129 | work, but, when the last running worker goes to sleep, it immediately | 
 | 130 | schedules a new worker so that the CPU doesn't sit idle while there | 
 | 131 | are pending work items.  This allows using a minimal number of workers | 
 | 132 | without losing execution bandwidth. | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 133 |  | 
 | 134 | Keeping idle workers around doesn't cost other than the memory space | 
 | 135 | for kthreads, so cmwq holds onto idle ones for a while before killing | 
 | 136 | them. | 
 | 137 |  | 
 | 138 | For an unbound wq, the above concurrency management doesn't apply and | 
| Tejun Heo | 3270476 | 2012-07-13 22:16:45 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 139 | the thread-pools for the pseudo unbound CPU try to start executing all | 
 | 140 | work items as soon as possible.  The responsibility of regulating | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 141 | concurrency level is on the users.  There is also a flag to mark a | 
 | 142 | bound wq to ignore the concurrency management.  Please refer to the | 
 | 143 | API section for details. | 
 | 144 |  | 
 | 145 | Forward progress guarantee relies on that workers can be created when | 
 | 146 | more execution contexts are necessary, which in turn is guaranteed | 
 | 147 | through the use of rescue workers.  All work items which might be used | 
 | 148 | on code paths that handle memory reclaim are required to be queued on | 
 | 149 | wq's that have a rescue-worker reserved for execution under memory | 
 | 150 | pressure.  Else it is possible that the thread-pool deadlocks waiting | 
 | 151 | for execution contexts to free up. | 
 | 152 |  | 
 | 153 |  | 
 | 154 | 4. Application Programming Interface (API) | 
 | 155 |  | 
 | 156 | alloc_workqueue() allocates a wq.  The original create_*workqueue() | 
 | 157 | functions are deprecated and scheduled for removal.  alloc_workqueue() | 
 | 158 | takes three arguments - @name, @flags and @max_active.  @name is the | 
 | 159 | name of the wq and also used as the name of the rescuer thread if | 
 | 160 | there is one. | 
 | 161 |  | 
 | 162 | A wq no longer manages execution resources but serves as a domain for | 
 | 163 | forward progress guarantee, flush and work item attributes.  @flags | 
 | 164 | and @max_active control how work items are assigned execution | 
 | 165 | resources, scheduled and executed. | 
 | 166 |  | 
 | 167 | @flags: | 
 | 168 |  | 
 | 169 |   WQ_NON_REENTRANT | 
 | 170 |  | 
 | 171 | 	By default, a wq guarantees non-reentrance only on the same | 
 | 172 | 	CPU.  A work item may not be executed concurrently on the same | 
 | 173 | 	CPU by multiple workers but is allowed to be executed | 
 | 174 | 	concurrently on multiple CPUs.  This flag makes sure | 
 | 175 | 	non-reentrance is enforced across all CPUs.  Work items queued | 
 | 176 | 	to a non-reentrant wq are guaranteed to be executed by at most | 
 | 177 | 	one worker system-wide at any given time. | 
 | 178 |  | 
 | 179 |   WQ_UNBOUND | 
 | 180 |  | 
 | 181 | 	Work items queued to an unbound wq are served by a special | 
 | 182 | 	gcwq which hosts workers which are not bound to any specific | 
 | 183 | 	CPU.  This makes the wq behave as a simple execution context | 
 | 184 | 	provider without concurrency management.  The unbound gcwq | 
 | 185 | 	tries to start execution of work items as soon as possible. | 
 | 186 | 	Unbound wq sacrifices locality but is useful for the following | 
 | 187 | 	cases. | 
 | 188 |  | 
 | 189 | 	* Wide fluctuation in the concurrency level requirement is | 
 | 190 | 	  expected and using bound wq may end up creating large number | 
 | 191 | 	  of mostly unused workers across different CPUs as the issuer | 
 | 192 | 	  hops through different CPUs. | 
 | 193 |  | 
 | 194 | 	* Long running CPU intensive workloads which can be better | 
 | 195 | 	  managed by the system scheduler. | 
 | 196 |  | 
| Tejun Heo | 58a69cb | 2011-02-16 09:25:31 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 197 |   WQ_FREEZABLE | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 198 |  | 
| Tejun Heo | 58a69cb | 2011-02-16 09:25:31 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 199 | 	A freezable wq participates in the freeze phase of the system | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 200 | 	suspend operations.  Work items on the wq are drained and no | 
 | 201 | 	new work item starts execution until thawed. | 
 | 202 |  | 
| Tejun Heo | 6370a6a | 2010-10-11 15:12:27 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 203 |   WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 204 |  | 
 | 205 | 	All wq which might be used in the memory reclaim paths _MUST_ | 
| Tejun Heo | 6370a6a | 2010-10-11 15:12:27 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 206 | 	have this flag set.  The wq is guaranteed to have at least one | 
 | 207 | 	execution context regardless of memory pressure. | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 208 |  | 
 | 209 |   WQ_HIGHPRI | 
 | 210 |  | 
| Tejun Heo | 3270476 | 2012-07-13 22:16:45 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 211 | 	Work items of a highpri wq are queued to the highpri | 
 | 212 | 	thread-pool of the target gcwq.  Highpri thread-pools are | 
 | 213 | 	served by worker threads with elevated nice level. | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 214 |  | 
| Tejun Heo | 3270476 | 2012-07-13 22:16:45 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 215 | 	Note that normal and highpri thread-pools don't interact with | 
 | 216 | 	each other.  Each maintain its separate pool of workers and | 
 | 217 | 	implements concurrency management among its workers. | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 218 |  | 
 | 219 |   WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE | 
 | 220 |  | 
 | 221 | 	Work items of a CPU intensive wq do not contribute to the | 
 | 222 | 	concurrency level.  In other words, runnable CPU intensive | 
| Tejun Heo | 3270476 | 2012-07-13 22:16:45 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 223 | 	work items will not prevent other work items in the same | 
 | 224 | 	thread-pool from starting execution.  This is useful for bound | 
 | 225 | 	work items which are expected to hog CPU cycles so that their | 
 | 226 | 	execution is regulated by the system scheduler. | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 227 |  | 
 | 228 | 	Although CPU intensive work items don't contribute to the | 
 | 229 | 	concurrency level, start of their executions is still | 
 | 230 | 	regulated by the concurrency management and runnable | 
 | 231 | 	non-CPU-intensive work items can delay execution of CPU | 
 | 232 | 	intensive work items. | 
 | 233 |  | 
 | 234 | 	This flag is meaningless for unbound wq. | 
 | 235 |  | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 236 | @max_active: | 
 | 237 |  | 
 | 238 | @max_active determines the maximum number of execution contexts per | 
 | 239 | CPU which can be assigned to the work items of a wq.  For example, | 
 | 240 | with @max_active of 16, at most 16 work items of the wq can be | 
 | 241 | executing at the same time per CPU. | 
 | 242 |  | 
 | 243 | Currently, for a bound wq, the maximum limit for @max_active is 512 | 
 | 244 | and the default value used when 0 is specified is 256.  For an unbound | 
 | 245 | wq, the limit is higher of 512 and 4 * num_possible_cpus().  These | 
 | 246 | values are chosen sufficiently high such that they are not the | 
 | 247 | limiting factor while providing protection in runaway cases. | 
 | 248 |  | 
 | 249 | The number of active work items of a wq is usually regulated by the | 
 | 250 | users of the wq, more specifically, by how many work items the users | 
 | 251 | may queue at the same time.  Unless there is a specific need for | 
 | 252 | throttling the number of active work items, specifying '0' is | 
 | 253 | recommended. | 
 | 254 |  | 
 | 255 | Some users depend on the strict execution ordering of ST wq.  The | 
 | 256 | combination of @max_active of 1 and WQ_UNBOUND is used to achieve this | 
 | 257 | behavior.  Work items on such wq are always queued to the unbound gcwq | 
 | 258 | and only one work item can be active at any given time thus achieving | 
 | 259 | the same ordering property as ST wq. | 
 | 260 |  | 
 | 261 |  | 
 | 262 | 5. Example Execution Scenarios | 
 | 263 |  | 
 | 264 | The following example execution scenarios try to illustrate how cmwq | 
 | 265 | behave under different configurations. | 
 | 266 |  | 
 | 267 |  Work items w0, w1, w2 are queued to a bound wq q0 on the same CPU. | 
 | 268 |  w0 burns CPU for 5ms then sleeps for 10ms then burns CPU for 5ms | 
 | 269 |  again before finishing.  w1 and w2 burn CPU for 5ms then sleep for | 
 | 270 |  10ms. | 
 | 271 |  | 
 | 272 | Ignoring all other tasks, works and processing overhead, and assuming | 
 | 273 | simple FIFO scheduling, the following is one highly simplified version | 
 | 274 | of possible sequences of events with the original wq. | 
 | 275 |  | 
 | 276 |  TIME IN MSECS	EVENT | 
 | 277 |  0		w0 starts and burns CPU | 
 | 278 |  5		w0 sleeps | 
 | 279 |  15		w0 wakes up and burns CPU | 
 | 280 |  20		w0 finishes | 
 | 281 |  20		w1 starts and burns CPU | 
 | 282 |  25		w1 sleeps | 
 | 283 |  35		w1 wakes up and finishes | 
 | 284 |  35		w2 starts and burns CPU | 
 | 285 |  40		w2 sleeps | 
 | 286 |  50		w2 wakes up and finishes | 
 | 287 |  | 
 | 288 | And with cmwq with @max_active >= 3, | 
 | 289 |  | 
 | 290 |  TIME IN MSECS	EVENT | 
 | 291 |  0		w0 starts and burns CPU | 
 | 292 |  5		w0 sleeps | 
 | 293 |  5		w1 starts and burns CPU | 
 | 294 |  10		w1 sleeps | 
 | 295 |  10		w2 starts and burns CPU | 
 | 296 |  15		w2 sleeps | 
 | 297 |  15		w0 wakes up and burns CPU | 
 | 298 |  20		w0 finishes | 
 | 299 |  20		w1 wakes up and finishes | 
 | 300 |  25		w2 wakes up and finishes | 
 | 301 |  | 
 | 302 | If @max_active == 2, | 
 | 303 |  | 
 | 304 |  TIME IN MSECS	EVENT | 
 | 305 |  0		w0 starts and burns CPU | 
 | 306 |  5		w0 sleeps | 
 | 307 |  5		w1 starts and burns CPU | 
 | 308 |  10		w1 sleeps | 
 | 309 |  15		w0 wakes up and burns CPU | 
 | 310 |  20		w0 finishes | 
 | 311 |  20		w1 wakes up and finishes | 
 | 312 |  20		w2 starts and burns CPU | 
 | 313 |  25		w2 sleeps | 
 | 314 |  35		w2 wakes up and finishes | 
 | 315 |  | 
 | 316 | Now, let's assume w1 and w2 are queued to a different wq q1 which has | 
| Tejun Heo | 3270476 | 2012-07-13 22:16:45 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 317 | WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE set, | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 318 |  | 
 | 319 |  TIME IN MSECS	EVENT | 
 | 320 |  0		w0 starts and burns CPU | 
 | 321 |  5		w0 sleeps | 
 | 322 |  5		w1 and w2 start and burn CPU | 
 | 323 |  10		w1 sleeps | 
 | 324 |  15		w2 sleeps | 
 | 325 |  15		w0 wakes up and burns CPU | 
 | 326 |  20		w0 finishes | 
 | 327 |  20		w1 wakes up and finishes | 
 | 328 |  25		w2 wakes up and finishes | 
 | 329 |  | 
 | 330 |  | 
 | 331 | 6. Guidelines | 
 | 332 |  | 
| Tejun Heo | 6370a6a | 2010-10-11 15:12:27 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 333 | * Do not forget to use WQ_MEM_RECLAIM if a wq may process work items | 
 | 334 |   which are used during memory reclaim.  Each wq with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | 
 | 335 |   set has an execution context reserved for it.  If there is | 
 | 336 |   dependency among multiple work items used during memory reclaim, | 
 | 337 |   they should be queued to separate wq each with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM. | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 338 |  | 
 | 339 | * Unless strict ordering is required, there is no need to use ST wq. | 
 | 340 |  | 
 | 341 | * Unless there is a specific need, using 0 for @max_active is | 
 | 342 |   recommended.  In most use cases, concurrency level usually stays | 
 | 343 |   well under the default limit. | 
 | 344 |  | 
| Tejun Heo | 6370a6a | 2010-10-11 15:12:27 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 345 | * A wq serves as a domain for forward progress guarantee | 
 | 346 |   (WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, flush and work item attributes.  Work items which | 
 | 347 |   are not involved in memory reclaim and don't need to be flushed as a | 
 | 348 |   part of a group of work items, and don't require any special | 
 | 349 |   attribute, can use one of the system wq.  There is no difference in | 
 | 350 |   execution characteristics between using a dedicated wq and a system | 
 | 351 |   wq. | 
| Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 352 |  | 
 | 353 | * Unless work items are expected to consume a huge amount of CPU | 
 | 354 |   cycles, using a bound wq is usually beneficial due to the increased | 
 | 355 |   level of locality in wq operations and work item execution. | 
| Florian Mickler | e2de9e0 | 2011-03-31 13:40:42 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 356 |  | 
 | 357 |  | 
 | 358 | 7. Debugging | 
 | 359 |  | 
 | 360 | Because the work functions are executed by generic worker threads | 
 | 361 | there are a few tricks needed to shed some light on misbehaving | 
 | 362 | workqueue users. | 
 | 363 |  | 
 | 364 | Worker threads show up in the process list as: | 
 | 365 |  | 
 | 366 | root      5671  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        S    12:07   0:00 [kworker/0:1] | 
 | 367 | root      5672  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        S    12:07   0:00 [kworker/1:2] | 
 | 368 | root      5673  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        S    12:12   0:00 [kworker/0:0] | 
 | 369 | root      5674  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        S    12:13   0:00 [kworker/1:0] | 
 | 370 |  | 
 | 371 | If kworkers are going crazy (using too much cpu), there are two types | 
 | 372 | of possible problems: | 
 | 373 |  | 
 | 374 | 	1. Something beeing scheduled in rapid succession | 
 | 375 | 	2. A single work item that consumes lots of cpu cycles | 
 | 376 |  | 
 | 377 | The first one can be tracked using tracing: | 
 | 378 |  | 
 | 379 | 	$ echo workqueue:workqueue_queue_work > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/set_event | 
 | 380 | 	$ cat /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_pipe > out.txt | 
 | 381 | 	(wait a few secs) | 
 | 382 | 	^C | 
 | 383 |  | 
 | 384 | If something is busy looping on work queueing, it would be dominating | 
 | 385 | the output and the offender can be determined with the work item | 
 | 386 | function. | 
 | 387 |  | 
 | 388 | For the second type of problems it should be possible to just check | 
 | 389 | the stack trace of the offending worker thread. | 
 | 390 |  | 
 | 391 | 	$ cat /proc/THE_OFFENDING_KWORKER/stack | 
 | 392 |  | 
 | 393 | The work item's function should be trivially visible in the stack | 
 | 394 | trace. |