[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230327110739.000057ed.zbestahu@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:07:39 +0800
From: Yue Hu <zbestahu@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, huyue2@...lpad.com,
zhangwen@...lpad.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Drop the NOT_RUNNING check to flags in
worker_{set,clr}_flags
Hi Tejun, Lai,
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 17:20:14 +0800
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:58 AM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 05:26:52PM +0800, Yue Hu wrote:
> > > From: Yue Hu <huyue2@...lpad.com>
> > >
> > > We know whether the worker flags are belong to WORKER_NOT_RUNNING or not
> > > when we are setting and clearing them. So check the flags not running
> > > related is unnecessary for both the cases.
> > >
> > > Currently, worker_{set,clr}_flags() are all used for WORKER_NOT_RUNNING
> > > except for clearing WORKER_IDLE. Let's change to directly clear it
> > > instead. Also, update the comment a little in worker_clr_flags().
> >
> > I'm not sure this is better. Semantically, the existing code seems clearer
> > and less error-prone to me and this isn't gonna make any meaningful perf
> > difference. Lai, what do you think?
>
> objdump -DSr kernel/workqueue.o | less
>
> 3275: 00 00
> 3273: R_X86_64_32S current_task
> WARN_ON_ONCE(worker->task != current);
> 3277: 48 39 43 40 cmp %rax,0x40(%rbx)
> 327b: 0f 85 91 00 00 00 jne 3312 <process_one_work+0x3a2>
> !(worker->flags & WORKER_NOT_RUNNING)) {
> 3281: 8b 43 68 mov 0x68(%rbx),%eax
> if ((flags & WORKER_NOT_RUNNING) &&
> 3284: a9 c8 01 00 00 test $0x1c8,%eax
> 3289: 75 0b jne 3296 <process_one_work+0x326>
> struct worker_pool *pool = worker->pool;
> 328b: 48 8b 43 48 mov 0x48(%rbx),%rax
> pool->nr_running--;
> 328f: 83 68 20 01 subl $0x1,0x20(%rax)
> 3293: 8b 43 68 mov 0x68(%rbx),%eax
> worker->flags |= flags;
> 3296: 83 c8 40 or $0x40,%eax
> 3299: 89 43 68 mov %eax,0x68(%rbx)
>
> It seems the compiler will do the trick. The clearer existing code
> seems better.
Thank you for taking time to review the patch.
The `worker_set_flags` has two behaviors. One is set worker flags unconditionally.
Another is to conditionally adjust `nr_running`. I understand the adjustment should be
only for the flags that we set to NOT_RUNNING.
And currently the `worker_set_flags()` is not universally used when setting them, such
as in the case of setting WOKER_IDLE. So, I think this helper is not fulfilling its
responsibility, it is actually just only processing `not_running` state.
If the change is meaningful, maybe it's better to name it as worker_set_not_running_flags()?
Anyway, it is just a minor change.
Thanks.
>
> Thanks
> Lai
>
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists