[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <X/7VQ8pF5h/K+Cj1@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:10:59 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>,
Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>,
Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip V3 0/8] workqueue: break affinity initiatively
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:38:12PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> But the hard problem is "how to suppress the warning of
> online&!active in __set_cpus_allowed_ptr()" for late spawned
> unbound workers during hotplug.
I cannot see create_worker() go bad like that.
The thing is, it uses:
kthread_bind_mask(, pool->attr->cpumask)
worker_attach_to_pool()
set_cpus_allowed_ptr(, pool->attr->cpumask)
which means set_cpus_allowed_ptr() must be a NOP, because the affinity
is already set by kthread_bind_mask(). Further, the first wakeup of that
worker will then hit:
select_task_rq()
is_cpu_allowed()
is_per_cpu_kthread() -- false
select_fallback_rq()
So normally that really isn't a problem. I can only see a tiny hole
there, where someone changes the cpumask between kthread_bind_mask() and
set_cpus_allowed_ptr(). AFAICT that can be fixed in two ways:
- add wq_pool_mutex around things in create_worker(), or
- move the set_cpus_allowed_ptr() out of worker_attach_to_pool() and
into rescuer_thread().
Which then brings us to rescuer_thread... If we manage to trigger the
rescuer during hotplug, then yes, I think that can go wobbly.
Let me consider that a bit more while I try and make sense of that splat
Paul reported.
---
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index ec0771e4a3fb..fe05308dc472 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -1844,15 +1844,19 @@ static struct worker *alloc_worker(int node)
* cpu-[un]hotplugs.
*/
static void worker_attach_to_pool(struct worker *worker,
- struct worker_pool *pool)
+ struct worker_pool *pool,
+ bool set_affinity)
{
mutex_lock(&wq_pool_attach_mutex);
- /*
- * set_cpus_allowed_ptr() will fail if the cpumask doesn't have any
- * online CPUs. It'll be re-applied when any of the CPUs come up.
- */
- set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, pool->attrs->cpumask);
+ if (set_affinity) {
+ /*
+ * set_cpus_allowed_ptr() will fail if the cpumask doesn't have
+ * any online CPUs. It'll be re-applied when any of the CPUs
+ * come up.
+ */
+ set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, pool->attrs->cpumask);
+ }
/*
* The wq_pool_attach_mutex ensures %POOL_DISASSOCIATED remains
@@ -1944,7 +1948,7 @@ static struct worker *create_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
kthread_bind_mask(worker->task, pool->attrs->cpumask);
/* successful, attach the worker to the pool */
- worker_attach_to_pool(worker, pool);
+ worker_attach_to_pool(worker, pool, false);
/* start the newly created worker */
raw_spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
@@ -2509,7 +2513,11 @@ static int rescuer_thread(void *__rescuer)
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&wq_mayday_lock);
- worker_attach_to_pool(rescuer, pool);
+ /*
+ * XXX can go splat when running during hot-un-plug and
+ * the pool affinity is wobbly.
+ */
+ worker_attach_to_pool(rescuer, pool, true);
raw_spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists