[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YbJ/yR6KMjhv9EfS@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 12:14:33 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 7/7] workqueue: Replace pool lock with preemption
disabling in wq_worker_sleeping()
Hello,
On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 03:35:43PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
>
> Once upon a time, wq_worker_sleeping() was called with rq lock held,
> so wq_worker_sleeping() can not use pool lock. Instead it used "X:"
> protection: preemption disabled on local cpu and wq_worker_sleeping()
> didn't depend on rq lock to work even with it held.
>
> Now, wq_worker_sleeping() isn't called with rq lock held and is using
> pool lock. But the functionality of "X:" protection isn't removed and
> wq_worker_running() is still using it.
>
> So we can also use "X:" protection in wq_worker_sleeping() and avoid
> locking the pool lock.
>
> This patch also documents that only idle_list.next is under "X:"
> protection, not the whole idle_list because destroy_worker() in idle
> timer can remove non-first idle workers. Idle timer can be possible
> strayed in different CPU, or even in the same CPU, it can interrupt
> preemption disabled context.
It's nice to go back to not needing to grab pool lock in the worker sleeping
path but I'm not sure it actually matters. This isn't in a red-hot path and
we're touching a bunch of stuff in the pool anyway, so the overhead of
grabbing a lock which likely isn't too contended shouldn't matter all that
much. So, maybe it'd be better to just keep things simple?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists