From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@uudg.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] workqueue: avoiding unbounded wq on isolated CPUs by default
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:55:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1437468925.12755.57.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1437292973.3505.83.camel@gmail.com>
On Sun, 2015-07-19 at 10:02 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Why do we do nothing about these allegedly unbound work items?
My box seems to think the answer is: no reason other than nobody having
asked the source to please not do that. Guess I'll go ask a NUMA box.
workqueue: RR schedule unbound work to CPUs in wq_unbound_cpumask
WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work items queued to a bound workqueue always run
locally. This is a good thing normally, as it keeps us from bouncing
work all over the place like ping-pong balls in a nuclear fission demo.
When the user has asked us to keep unbound work away from certain CPUs
however, honor that request, select a CPU from wq_unbound_cpumask.
Not-signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -301,6 +301,9 @@ static bool workqueue_freezing; /* PL:
static cpumask_var_t wq_unbound_cpumask; /* PL: low level cpumask for all unbound wqs */
+/* CPU where WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work was last round robin scheduled from this CPU */
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, wq_unbound_rr_cpu_last);
+
/* the per-cpu worker pools */
static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct worker_pool [NR_STD_WORKER_POOLS],
cpu_worker_pools);
@@ -1294,6 +1297,24 @@ static bool is_chained_work(struct workq
return worker && worker->current_pwq->wq == wq;
}
+/*
+ * When queueing WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work to a !WQ_UNBOUND queue, round
+ * robin among wq_unbound_cpumask to avoid perturbing sensitive tasks.
+ */
+static unsigned int select_round_robin_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+ if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, wq_unbound_cpumask))
+ return cpu;
+ if (cpumask_empty(wq_unbound_cpumask))
+ return cpu;
+ cpu = __this_cpu_read(wq_unbound_rr_cpu_last);
+ cpu = cpumask_next_and(cpu, wq_unbound_cpumask, cpu_online_mask);
+ if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
+ cpu = 0;
+ __this_cpu_write(wq_unbound_rr_cpu_last, cpu);
+ return cpu;
+}
+
static void __queue_work(int cpu, struct workqueue_struct *wq,
struct work_struct *work)
{
@@ -1322,9 +1343,11 @@ static void __queue_work(int cpu, struct
cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
/* pwq which will be used unless @work is executing elsewhere */
- if (!(wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND))
+ if (!(wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND)) {
+ if (req_cpu == WORK_CPU_UNBOUND)
+ cpu = select_round_robin_cpu(cpu);
pwq = per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_pwqs, cpu);
- else
+ } else
pwq = unbound_pwq_by_node(wq, cpu_to_node(cpu));
/*
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-21 8:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-16 19:16 Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2015-07-16 19:24 ` Tejun Heo
2015-07-17 4:26 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-17 15:27 ` Tejun Heo
2015-07-17 15:35 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2015-07-17 15:43 ` Tejun Heo
2015-07-17 17:15 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-18 13:36 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2015-07-18 15:48 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-19 8:02 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-19 12:19 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-21 8:55 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2015-07-22 5:24 ` [patch] workqueue: schedule WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work on wq_unbound_cpumask CPUs Mike Galbraith
2015-07-22 12:43 ` [PATCH] workqueue: avoiding unbounded wq on isolated CPUs by default Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2015-07-22 14:11 ` [patch] workqueue: schedule WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work on wq_unbound_cpumask CPUs Tejun Heo
2015-07-22 14:55 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-22 15:19 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-22 15:25 ` Tejun Heo
2015-07-24 3:38 ` Mike Galbraith
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=1437468925.12755.57.camel@gmail.com \
--to=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=lclaudio@uudg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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
Powered by JetHome