linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Workqueue: fs: replace use of system_wq and add WQ_PERCPU to alloc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250819-maden-beteuern-82c84504d0b3@brauner>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 13:23:26 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>, 
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, 
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, 
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Workqueue: fs: replace use of system_wq and add
 WQ_PERCPU to alloc_workqueue users

On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 11:47:13AM +0200, Marco Crivellari wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> Below is a summary of a discussion about the Workqueue API and cpu isolation
> considerations. Details and more information are available here:
> 
>         "workqueue: Always use wq_select_unbound_cpu() for WORK_CPU_UNBOUND."
>         https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250221112003.1dSuoGyc@linutronix.de/
> 
> === Current situation: problems ===
> 
> Let's consider a nohz_full system with isolated CPUs: wq_unbound_cpumask is
> set to the housekeeping CPUs, for !WQ_UNBOUND the local CPU is selected.
> 
> This leads to different scenarios if a work item is scheduled on an isolated
> CPU where "delay" value is 0 or greater then 0:
> 		schedule_delayed_work(, 0);
> 
> This will be handled by __queue_work() that will queue the work item on the
> current local (isolated) CPU, while:
> 
> 		schedule_delayed_work(, 1);
> 
> Will move the timer on an housekeeping CPU, and schedule the work there.
> 
> Currently if a user enqueue a work item using schedule_delayed_work() the
> used wq is "system_wq" (per-cpu wq) while queue_delayed_work() use
> WORK_CPU_UNBOUND (used when a cpu is not specified). The same applies to
> schedule_work() that is using system_wq and queue_work(), that makes use
> again of WORK_CPU_UNBOUND.
> 
> This lack of consistentcy cannot be addressed without refactoring the API.
> 
> === Plan and future plans ===
> 
> This patchset is the first stone on a refactoring needed in order to
> address the points aforementioned; it will have a positive impact also
> on the cpu isolation, in the long term, moving away percpu workqueue in
> favor to an unbound model.
> 
> These are the main steps:
> 1)  API refactoring (that this patch is introducing)
> 	-	Make more clear and uniform the system wq names, both per-cpu and
> 		unbound. This to avoid any possible confusion on what should be
> 		used.
> 
> 	-	Introduction of WQ_PERCPU: this flag is the complement of WQ_UNBOUND,
> 		introduced in this patchset and used on all the callers that are not
> 		currently using WQ_UNBOUND.
> 
> 		WQ_UNBOUND will be removed in a future release cycle.
> 
> 		Most users don't need to be per-cpu, because they don't have
> 		locality requirements, because of that, a next future step will be
> 		make "unbound" the default behavior.
> 
> 2)  Check who really needs to be per-cpu
> 	-	Remove the WQ_PERCPU flag when is not strictly required.
> 
> 3)  Add a new API (prefer local cpu)
> 	-	There are users that don't require a local execution, like mentioned
> 		above; despite that, local execution yeld to performance gain.
> 
> 		This new API will prefer the local execution, without requiring it.
> 		
> === Introduced Changes by this patchset ===
> 
> 1) [P 1] replace use of system_wq with system_percpu_wq (under fs)
> 
> 		system_wq is a per-CPU workqueue, but his name is not clear.
> 		system_unbound_wq is to be used when locality is not required.
> 
> 		Because of that, system_wq has been renamed in system_percpu_wq in the
> 		fs subsystm (details in the next section).
> 
> 2) [P 2] add WQ_PERCPU to alloc_workqueue() users (under fs)
> 
> 		Every alloc_workqueue() caller should use one among WQ_PERCPU or
> 		WQ_UNBOUND. This is actually enforced warning if both or none of them
> 		are present at the same time.
> 
> 		These patches introduce WQ_PERCPU in the fs subsystem 
> 		(details in the next section).
> 
> 		WQ_UNBOUND will be removed in a next release cycle.
> 
> === For fs Maintainers ===
> 
> If you agree with these changes, one option is pull the preparation changes from
> Tejun's wq branch [1].

I'll take it through the vfs-6.18.workqueue branch.
Can I just pull the series from the list so we have all the lore links
and the cover letter?