From: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, marco.crivellari@suse.com,
frederic@kernel.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>,
kernel-team@meta.com, kmagar@redhat.com, psuriset@redhat.com,
david.dai@linux.dev
Subject: [PATCH v5 0/3] workqueue: Shrink the lock time
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2026 02:57:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260626-fastwake-v5-0-9ae2f1867234@debian.org> (raw)
The goal of this patchset is to decrease the time spent under the
workqueue pool->lock.
Currently the worker process is woken up inside pool->lock. The wakeup
ends in wake_up_process(), which takes the target task's rq->lock, so
rq->lock nests under pool->lock on the two hottest paths of a contended
unbound workqueue (__queue_work() enqueue and process_one_work() chain
kick). On some architectures the wakeup is even more expensive: on
arm64 waking a CPU that is idle (in wfi) issues an IPI.
Doing all of that while holding pool->lock lengthens the locked region
and hurts throughput on contended unbound pools.
This series shortens the locked region by selecting and claiming the
worker to wake under pool->lock, but issuing the actual wakeup after the
lock is dropped, using the wake_q machinery (wake_q_add() under the
lock, wake_up_q() after).
Because the win is a shorter pool->lock hold time, it shows up most
clearly as lower enqueue latency under contention.
Performance numbers (based on in-kernel workqueue microbenchmark)
VMs and arm64 (Grace) is where this series is meant to pay off -- waking
an idle CPU sitting in wfi costs an IPI (on arm; similar type of
operation on VMs), so doing it under pool->lock lengthens the critical
section.
Latested number (from v5) on a Grace arm64 host:
affinity_scope baseline patched tput p95
(items/s) (items/s) gain drop
-------------- --------- --------- ------ ------
cpu 3,580,440 3,486,014 -2.6% +3.5%
smt 3,545,763 3,512,633 -0.9% +2.8%
cache_shard 3,397,678 3,651,063 +7.5% -4.2%
cache 720,368 797,914 +10.8% -9.8%
numa 719,794 794,049 +10.3% -10.3%
system 721,058 798,010 +10.7% -10.0%
Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Changes in v5:
- Use wake_up_process() instead of the fancy wake_q_add() as raised by
tejun.
- Dropped the review-by from Sebastian, given the code changed.
- Link to v4: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260624-fastwake-v4-0-7b6d7b494a44@debian.org
Changes in v4:
- replace raw_spin_unlock_wake() with a standard
raw_spin_unlock() + wake_up_q() (Sebastian Andrzej Siewior)
- Link to v3: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260616-fastwake-v3-0-79da19fcd08f@debian.org
Changes in v3:
- Drop the "park kicked worker on pool->kicked_list" patch (v2 1/4).
* That is a fix that is independent of this patch, in case we want to
revamp it, it can be sent separately.
- Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260603-fastwake-v2-0-2977512fe7fa@debian.org
Changes in v2:
- Close the idle_cull_fn() vs kicked-worker race by parking the kicked
worker on a new pool->kicked_list under pool->lock (new patch 1).
Reported by Hillf Danton.
- Use the wake_q machinery (wake_q_add() / wake_up_q() via
raw_spin_unlock_wake()) instead of plumbing a task_struct out of the
helper by hand. Suggested by Sebastian Andrzej Siewior.
- Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260526-fastwake-v1-0-e69ad86923e6@debian.org
---
Breno Leitao (3):
workqueue: split kick_pool() into kick_pool_pick()
workqueue: defer the worker wakeup outside pool->lock in __queue_work()
workqueue: defer the worker wakeup outside pool->lock in process_one_work()
kernel/workqueue.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 8d6dbbbe3ba62de0a63e962ee004afb848c8e3ac
change-id: 20260526-fastwake-02982fd66312
Best regards,
--
Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
next reply other threads:[~2026-06-26 9:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-26 9:57 Breno Leitao [this message]
2026-06-26 9:57 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] workqueue: split kick_pool() into kick_pool_pick() Breno Leitao
2026-06-26 9:57 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] workqueue: defer the worker wakeup outside pool->lock in __queue_work() Breno Leitao
2026-06-26 9:57 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] workqueue: defer the worker wakeup outside pool->lock in process_one_work() Breno Leitao
2026-06-29 18:24 ` [PATCH v5 0/3] workqueue: Shrink the lock time Tejun Heo
2026-06-29 19:31 ` Breno Leitao
2026-06-29 20:05 ` Tejun Heo
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=20260626-fastwake-v5-0-9ae2f1867234@debian.org \
--to=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=david.dai@linux.dev \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kmagar@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marco.crivellari@suse.com \
--cc=psuriset@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