Re: workqueue cpu affinity

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 06/10, Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>
> Here is some backgound on this. Full cpu isolation requires some tweaks to the
> workqueue handling. Either the workqueue threads need to be moved (which is my
> current approach), or work needs to be redirected when it's submitted.

_IF_ we have to do this, I think it is much better to move cwq->thread.

> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The advantage of creating a more flexible or fine-grained flush is that
> > large machine also profit from it.
> I agree, our current workqueue flush scheme is expensive because it has to
> schedule on each online cpu. So yes improving flush makes sense in general.

Yes, it is easy to implement flush_work(struct work_struct *work) which
only waits for that work, so it can't hang unless it was enqueued on the
isolated cpu.

But in most cases it is enough to just do

	if (cancel_work_sync(work))
		work->func(work);

Or we can add flush_workqueue_cpus(struct workqueue_struct *wq, cpumask_t *cpu_map).

But I don't think we should change the behaviour of flush_workqueue().

> This will require a bit of surgery across the entire tree. There is a lot of
> code that calls flush_scheduled_work()

Almost all of them should be changed to use cancel_work_sync().

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/