[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJhGHyDWn91eH7-ZPj-utuaugz3UEdGXSKgLYHkdwBr5op=8iA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 00:36:55 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>,
Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>,
Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] workqueue: Tag bound workers with KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:51 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> Mark the per-cpu workqueue workers as KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU.
>
> Workqueues have unfortunate semantics in that per-cpu workers are not
> default flushed and parked during hotplug, however a subset does
> manual flush on hotplug and hard relies on them for correctness.
>
> Therefore play silly games..
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
I like this patchset in that the scheduler takes care of the
affinities of the tasks when we don't want it to be per-cpu.
> kernel/workqueue.c | 11 +++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -1861,6 +1861,8 @@ static void worker_attach_to_pool(struct
> */
> if (pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED)
> worker->flags |= WORKER_UNBOUND;
> + else
> + kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, true);
>
> list_add_tail(&worker->node, &pool->workers);
> worker->pool = pool;
> @@ -1883,6 +1885,7 @@ static void worker_detach_from_pool(stru
>
> mutex_lock(&wq_pool_attach_mutex);
>
> + kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, false);
> list_del(&worker->node);
> worker->pool = NULL;
>
> @@ -4919,8 +4922,10 @@ static void unbind_workers(int cpu)
>
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
>
> - for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool)
> + for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool) {
> + kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, false);
> WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, cpu_possible_mask) < 0);
> + }
>
> mutex_unlock(&wq_pool_attach_mutex);
>
> @@ -4972,9 +4977,11 @@ static void rebind_workers(struct worker
> * of all workers first and then clear UNBOUND. As we're called
> * from CPU_ONLINE, the following shouldn't fail.
> */
> - for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool)
> + for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool) {
> WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task,
> pool->attrs->cpumask) < 0);
> + kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, true);
> + }
>
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists