Date:   Thu, 19 Nov 2020 10:25:57 +0800
From:   Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>
To:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
CC:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shiyuan Hu <hushiyuan@...wei.com>,
        Hewenliang <hewenliang4@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: workqueue: Only kick a worker after thawed or for an unbound
 workqueue



On 2020/11/19 9:58, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 5:05 PM Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2020/11/18 14:26, Yunfeng Ye wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2020/11/18 12:06, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:33 PM Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In realtime scenario, We do not want to have interference on the
>>>>> isolated cpu cores. but when invoking alloc_workqueue() for percpu wq
>>>>> on the housekeeping cpu, it kick a kworker on the isolated cpu.
>>>>>
>>>>>   alloc_workqueue
>>>>>     pwq_adjust_max_active
>>>>>       wake_up_worker
>>>>>
>>>>> The comment in pwq_adjust_max_active() said:
>>>>>   "Need to kick a worker after thawed or an unbound wq's
>>>>>    max_active is bumped"
>>>>>
>>>>> So it is unnecessary to kick a kworker for percpu wq's when
>>>>> alloc_workqueue. this patch only kick a worker after thawed or for an
>>>>> unbound workqueue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  kernel/workqueue.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
>>>>>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
>>>>> index c41c3c17b86a..80f7bbd4889f 100644
>>>>> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
>>>>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
>>>>> @@ -3696,14 +3696,16 @@ static void pwq_unbound_release_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
>>>>>  }
>>>>>
>>>>>  /**
>>>>> - * pwq_adjust_max_active - update a pwq's max_active to the current setting
>>>>> + * pwq_adjust_max_active_and_kick - update a pwq's max_active to the current setting
>>>>>   * @pwq: target pool_workqueue
>>>>> + * @force_kick: force to kick a worker
>>>>>   *
>>>>>   * If @pwq isn't freezing, set @pwq->max_active to the associated
>>>>>   * workqueue's saved_max_active and activate delayed work items
>>>>>   * accordingly.  If @pwq is freezing, clear @pwq->max_active to zero.
>>>>>   */
>>>>> -static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
>>>>> +static void pwq_adjust_max_active_and_kick(struct pool_workqueue *pwq,
>>>>> +                                       bool force_kick)
>>>>>  {
>>>>>         struct workqueue_struct *wq = pwq->wq;
>>>>>         bool freezable = wq->flags & WQ_FREEZABLE;
>>>>> @@ -3733,9 +3735,10 @@ static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
>>>>>
>>>>>                 /*
>>>>>                  * Need to kick a worker after thawed or an unbound wq's
>>>>> -                * max_active is bumped.  It's a slow path.  Do it always.
>>>>> +                * max_active is bumped.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for reporting the problem.
>>>>
>>>> But I don't like to add an argument. The waking up is called
>>>> always just because it was considered no harm and it is slow
>>>> path. But it can still be possible to detect if the waking up
>>>> is really needed based on the actual activation of delayed works.
>>>>
>>>> The previous lines are:
>>>>
>>>>                 while (!list_empty(&pwq->delayed_works) &&
>>>>                        pwq->nr_active < pwq->max_active)
>>>>                         pwq_activate_first_delayed(pwq);
>>>>
>>>> And you can record the old pwq->nr_active before these lines:
>>>>
>>>>                 int old_nr_active = pwq->nr_active;
>>>>
>>>>                 while (!list_empty(&pwq->delayed_works) &&
>>>>                        pwq->nr_active < pwq->max_active)
>>>>                         pwq_activate_first_delayed(pwq);
>>>>
>>>>                 /* please add more comments here, see 951a078a5 */
>>>>                 if (old_nr_active < pwq->nr_active) {
>>>>                         if (!old_nr_active || (wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND))
>>>>                                 wake_up_worker(pwq->pool);
>>>>                 }
>>>>
>>> Ok, I will send a patch v2.
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>> I think it is unnecessary to distinguish the percpu or unbound's wq,
>> kick a worker always based on the actual activation of delayed works.
>>
>> Look like this:
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> index c41c3c17b86a..cd551dcb2cc9 100644
>> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> @@ -3725,17 +3725,23 @@ static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
>>          * is updated and visible.
>>          */
>>         if (!freezable || !workqueue_freezing) {
>> +               bool kick = false;
>> +
>>                 pwq->max_active = wq->saved_max_active;
>>
>>                 while (!list_empty(&pwq->delayed_works) &&
>> -                      pwq->nr_active < pwq->max_active)
>> +                      pwq->nr_active < pwq->max_active) {
>>                         pwq_activate_first_delayed(pwq);
>> +                       kick = true;
>> +               }
>>
>>                 /*
>>                  * Need to kick a worker after thawed or an unbound wq's
>> -                * max_active is bumped.  It's a slow path.  Do it always.
>> +                * max_active is bumped. It's a slow path. Do it always
>> +                * based on the actual activation of delayed works.
>>                  */
>> -               wake_up_worker(pwq->pool);
>> +               if (kick)
>> +                       wake_up_worker(pwq->pool);
>>         } else {
>>                 pwq->max_active = 0;
>>         }
>>
>> Is it OK?
>> Thanks.
> 
> 
> It is OK, since it is a slow path. Please also add
> comments to the code for reasons not to wake up in
> some cases as described in your previous comments.
> 
Ok, thanks.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your work.
>>>> Lai.
>>>>
>>>>>                  */
>>>>> -               wake_up_worker(pwq->pool);
>>>>> +               if (force_kick || (wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND))
>>>>> +                       wake_up_worker(pwq->pool);
>>>>>         } else {
>>>>>                 pwq->max_active = 0;
>>>>>         }
>>>>> @@ -3743,6 +3746,11 @@ static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
>>>>>         raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pwq->pool->lock, flags);
>>>>>  }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +       pwq_adjust_max_active_and_kick(pwq, false);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>>  /* initialize newly alloced @pwq which is associated with @wq and @pool */
>>>>>  static void init_pwq(struct pool_workqueue *pwq, struct workqueue_struct *wq,
>>>>>                      struct worker_pool *pool)
>>>>> @@ -5252,7 +5260,7 @@ void thaw_workqueues(void)
>>>>>         list_for_each_entry(wq, &workqueues, list) {
>>>>>                 mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
>>>>>                 for_each_pwq(pwq, wq)
>>>>> -                       pwq_adjust_max_active(pwq);
>>>>> +                       pwq_adjust_max_active_and_kick(pwq, true);
>>>>>                 mutex_unlock(&wq->mutex);
>>>>>         }
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.18.4
>>>> .
>>>>
> .
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists