Date:	Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:36:39 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: remove gcwq and make worker_pool the only
 backend abstraction

On 17/01/13 09:42, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Currently, on the backend side, there are two layers of abstraction.
> For each CPU and the special unbound wq-specific CPU, there's one
> global_cwq.  gcwq in turn hosts two worker_pools - one for normal
> priority, the other for highpri - each of which actually serves the
> work items.
>
> worker_pool is the later addition to support separate pool of workers
> for highpri workqueues.  Stuff was moved to worker_pool on as-needed
> basis and, as a result, the two pools belonging to the same CPU share
> some stuff in the gcwq - most notably the lock and the hash table for
> work items currently being executed.
>
> It seems like we'll need to support worker pools with custom
> attributes, which is planned to be implemented as extra worker_pools
> for the unbound CPU.  Removing gcwq and having worker_pool as the top
> level abstraction makes things much simpler for such designs.  Also,
> there's scalability benefit to not sharing locking and busy hash among
> different worker pools as worker pools w/ custom attributes are likely
> to have widely different memory / cpu locality characteristics.
>
> In retrospect, it might have been less churn if we just converted to
> have multiple gcwqs per CPU when we were adding highpri pool support.
> Oh well, such is life and the name worker_pool fits the role much
> better anyway at this point.
>
> This patchset moves the remaining stuff in gcwq to worker_pool and
> then removes gcwq entirely making worker_pool the top level and the
> only backend abstraction.  In the process, this patchset also prepares
> for later addition of worker_pools with custom attributes.
>
> This patchset shouldn't introduce any visible differences outside of
> workqueue proper and contains the following 17 patches.
>
>   0001-workqueue-unexport-work_cpu.patch
>   0002-workqueue-use-std_-prefix-for-the-standard-per-cpu-p.patch
>   0003-workqueue-make-GCWQ_DISASSOCIATED-a-pool-flag.patch
>   0004-workqueue-make-GCWQ_FREEZING-a-pool-flag.patch
>   0005-workqueue-introduce-WORK_OFFQ_CPU_NONE.patch
>   0006-workqueue-add-worker_pool-id.patch
>   0007-workqueue-record-pool-ID-instead-of-CPU-in-work-data.patch
>   0008-workqueue-move-busy_hash-from-global_cwq-to-worker_p.patch
>   0009-workqueue-move-global_cwq-cpu-to-worker_pool.patch
>   0010-workqueue-move-global_cwq-lock-to-worker_pool.patch
>   0011-workqueue-make-hotplug-processing-per-pool.patch
>   0012-workqueue-make-freezing-thawing-per-pool.patch
>   0013-workqueue-replace-for_each_worker_pool-with-for_each.patch
>   0014-workqueue-remove-worker_pool-gcwq.patch
>   0015-workqueue-remove-global_cwq.patch
>   0016-workqueue-rename-nr_running-variables.patch
>   0017-workqueue-post-global_cwq-removal-cleanups.patch
>
> 0001-0002 are misc preps.
>
> 0003-0004 move flags from gcwq to pool.
>
> 0005-0007 make work->data off-queue backlink point to worker_pools
> instead of CPUs, which is necessary to move busy_hash to pool.
>
> 0008-0010 move busy_hash, cpu and locking to pool.
>
> 0011-0014 make operations per-pool and remove gcwq usages.
>
> 0015-0017 remove gcwq and cleanup afterwards.
>
> This patchset is on top of wq/for-3.9 023f27d3d6f ("workqueue: fix
> find_worker_executing_work() brekage from hashtable conversion") and
> available in the following git branch.
>
>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/wq.git for-3.9-remove-gcwq
>


For the whole patchset
Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>

The only concern: get_work_pool() may slow down __queue_work().

I think we can save the pool->id at work_struct->entry.next, It will 
simply the code a little. More aggressive, we can save the work_pool 
pointer at work_struct->entry.next, it will simply more code and 
__queue_work() will not be slowed down. (It is the user's responsibility 
not to modify work_struct if the user want to pass it to workqueue API 
later)

Thanks,
Lai



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists