Message-ID: <20250918085525.122429-1-marco.crivellari@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 10:55:24 +0200
From: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-modules@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/1] module: replace wq users and add WQ_PERCPU to alloc_workqueue() users


Hi!

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 series ===

1) [P 1] Replace use of system_wq

        system_wq is a per-CPU workqueue, but his name is not clear.
        Because of that, system_wq has been renamed in system_percpu_wq.

		The actual code doesn't benefit from a per-cpu wq, so instead of
		the per-cpu wq, system_dfl_wq has been used.


Thanks!

---
Changes in v2:
- system_wq replaced by system_dfl_wq, the new unbound wq


Marco Crivellari (1):
  module: replace use of system_wq with system_dfl_wq

 kernel/module/dups.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

-- 
2.51.0

Powered by blists - more mailing lists