[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YABDI6Qkp5PNslUS@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 14:12:03 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
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 Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 09:28:13PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:51 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > @@ -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);
>
> Will the schedule break affinity in the middle of these two lines due to
> patch4 allowing it and result in Paul's reported splat.
So something like the below _should_ work, except i'm seeing odd WARNs.
I'll prod at it some more.
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -2371,6 +2371,7 @@ static int worker_thread(void *__worker)
/* tell the scheduler that this is a workqueue worker */
set_pf_worker(true);
woke_up:
+ kthread_parkme();
raw_spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
/* am I supposed to die? */
@@ -2428,6 +2429,7 @@ static int worker_thread(void *__worker)
move_linked_works(work, &worker->scheduled, NULL);
process_scheduled_works(worker);
}
+ kthread_parkme();
} while (keep_working(pool));
worker_set_flags(worker, WORKER_PREP);
@@ -4978,9 +4980,9 @@ static void rebind_workers(struct worker
* from CPU_ONLINE, the following shouldn't fail.
*/
for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool) {
- WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task,
- pool->attrs->cpumask) < 0);
+ kthread_park(worker->task);
kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, true);
+ kthread_unpark(worker->task);
}
raw_spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists