Re: [PATCH] firmware_class: Move request_firmware_nowait() to workqueues

[Christian Lamparter]

On Friday 16 March 2012 22:45:52 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, March 16, 2012, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 03/16/12 13:19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 16, 2012, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > >> On 03/15/12 15:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, March 15, 2012, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > >>>> On 03/15/12 13:07, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, March 15, 2012 08:50:15 PM Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > >>>>>> Oddly enough a work_struct was already part of the firmware_work
> > >>>>>> structure but nobody was using it. Instead of creating a new
> > >>>>>> kthread for each request_firmware_nowait() just schedule the work
> > >>>>>> on the system workqueue. This should avoid some overhead in
> > >>>>>> forking new threads when they're not strictly necessary if
> > >>>>>> workqueues are available.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>>> Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I saw this while looking at this problem we're having.
> > >>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that stall all other
> > >>>>> global workqueue tasks for up to 60 seconds [in worst case]?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> But I think we can get rid of the firmware_work work struct...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> My understanding is that with concurrency managed workqueues when the
> > >>>> work item blocks another will be scheduled to run almost immediately. So
> > >>>> before that change by Tejun workqueues would have been a bad idea
> > >>>> because it could have blocked up to 60 second but now it should be fine
> > >>>> because that work item will just be put to sleep and another request
> > >>>> will run.
> > >>> Please read the description of system_wq in workqueue.h.
> > >>>
> > >>> You should have used either system_long_wq or system_nrt_wq (depending on
> > >>> what you really need).
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Thanks. I think we can use system_nrt_wq then? Or maybe even the
> > >> unbounded workqueue system_unbound_wq?
> > > Hmm.  Can you please remind me what the exact role of that work item is?
> > >
> > > It loads the device's firmware, but I'm not sure in what situations that's
> > > supposed to happen.
> > >
> > 
> > request_firmware_nowait() is used by code that wants to get the firmware
> > asynchronously. Callers pass in a callback function which is called once
> > the firmware is retrieved. The work item will correspond to one call to
> > request_firmware_nowait(), where the work item will handle the sysfs
> > entry generation, uevent generation, and wait_for_completion() calls
> > that _request_firmware() does.
> > 
> > The work item also executes the callback function the caller passes in
> > which could do probably anything and could take an arbitrarily long
> > time. It looks like some drivers even chain request_firmware_nowait()
> > together by calling request_firmware_nowait() from the callback functions.
> 
> So it looks like an unbound workqueue would be suitable for that, but
> perhaps it may even be an ordered one?
Just a note:
kernel/kmod.c currently defines a workqueue "khelper"... So since we are
already "using" kmod's usermodehelper_*, then why not the mess with the
workqueue as well? 

Regards,
	Chr
--
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/