Re: [PATCH v4 13/14] workqueue: implement NUMA affinity for unboundworkqueues

From: Lai Jiangshan
Date: Sat Mar 30 2013 - 13:21:23 EST


On 31/03/13 00:32, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Lai.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:eag0628@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>
> + /* all pwqs have been created successfully, let's install'em */
> mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
>
> copy_workqueue_attrs(wq->unbound_attrs, new_attrs);
> +
> + /* save the previous pwq and install the new one */
> for_each_node(node)
> - last_pwq = numa_pwq_tbl_install(wq, node, pwq);
> + pwq_tbl[node] = numa_pwq_tbl_install(wq, node, pwq_tbl[node]);
> +
> + /* @dfl_pwq might not have been used, ensure it's linked */
> + link_pwq(dfl_pwq);
> + swap(wq->dfl_pwq, dfl_pwq);
>
> mutex_unlock(&wq->mutex);
>
> - put_pwq_unlocked(last_pwq);
> + /* put the old pwqs */
> + for_each_node(node)
> + put_pwq_unlocked(pwq_tbl[node]);
> + put_pwq_unlocked(dfl_pwq);
> +
> + put_online_cpus();
> return 0;
>
>
>
> Forgot to free new_attrs in previous patch
> (workqueue: fix unbound workqueue attrs hashing / comparison).
>
> Forgot to free tmp_attrs, pwq_tbl in this patch.
>
>
> Right, will fix.
>
> +retry:
> + mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
> +
> + copy_workqueue_attrs(target_attrs, wq->unbound_attrs);
> + pwq = unbound_pwq_by_node(wq, node);
> +
> + /*
> + * Let's determine what needs to be done. If the target cpumask is
> + * different from wq's, we need to compare it to @pwq's and create
> + * a new one if they don't match. If the target cpumask equals
> + * wq's, the default pwq should be used. If @pwq is already the
> + * default one, nothing to do; otherwise, install the default one.
> + */
> + if (wq_calc_node_cpumask(wq->unbound_attrs, node, cpu_off, cpumask)) {
> + if (cpumask_equal(cpumask, pwq->pool->attrs->cpumask))
> + goto out_unlock;
> + } else if (pwq != wq->dfl_pwq) {
> + goto use_dfl_pwq;
> + } else {
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Have we already created a new pwq? As we could have raced with
> + * apply_workqueue_attrs(), verify that its attrs match the desired
> + * one before installing.
> + */
>
>
> I don't see any race since there is get/put_online_cpu() in apply_workqueue_attrs().
>
>
> I don't know. I kinda want wq exclusion to be self-contained, but yeah the hotplug exclusion here is *almost* explicit so maybe it would be better to depend on it. Will think about it.
>
> + mutex_unlock(&wq->mutex);
> + put_pwq_unlocked(old_pwq);
> + free_unbound_pwq(new_pwq);
> +}
>
>
> OK, your solution is what I suggested: swapping dfl_pwq <-> node pwq.
> But when the last cpu of the node(of the wq) is trying to offline.
> you need to handle the work items of node pwq(old_pwq in the code).
>
> you may handle the works which are still queued by migrating, OR by
> flushing the works.
> and you may handle busy works by temporary changing the cpumask of
> the workers, OR by flushing the busy works.
>
>
> I don't think that's necessary.

Please document it.

> It's not like we have hard guarantee on attr changes anyway.
> Self-requeueing work items can get stuck with old attributes for quite a while,

It is OK for it is documented.

> and even per-cpu work items get migrated to other CPUs on CPU DOWN.

It is expected.

But for unbound wq when cpuhotplug
w/o NUMA affinity, works are always in the cpus if there is online cpu in wq's cpumask
w/ NUMA affinity, ......... NOT always ........ even ....................................

> Workqueue's affinity guarantee is very specific - the work item owner is
> responsible for flushing the work item during CPU DOWN if it wants
> to guarantee affinity over full execution.

Could you add the comments and add Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
for the patchset?

Thanks,
Lai

--
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/