Re: [PATCH 3/4] workqueue: Tag bound workers with KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU

From: Lai Jiangshan
Date: Wed Jan 13 2021 - 08:29:27 EST


On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:51 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Mark the per-cpu workqueue workers as KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU.
>
> Workqueues have unfortunate semantics in that per-cpu workers are not
> default flushed and parked during hotplug, however a subset does
> manual flush on hotplug and hard relies on them for correctness.
>
> Therefore play silly games..
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/workqueue.c | 11 +++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -1861,6 +1861,8 @@ static void worker_attach_to_pool(struct
> */
> if (pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED)
> worker->flags |= WORKER_UNBOUND;
> + else
> + kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, true);
>
> list_add_tail(&worker->node, &pool->workers);
> worker->pool = pool;
> @@ -1883,6 +1885,7 @@ static void worker_detach_from_pool(stru
>
> mutex_lock(&wq_pool_attach_mutex);
>
> + kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, false);
> list_del(&worker->node);
> worker->pool = NULL;
>
> @@ -4919,8 +4922,10 @@ static void unbind_workers(int cpu)
>
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
>
> - for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool)
> + for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool) {
> + kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, false);
> WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, cpu_possible_mask) < 0);
> + }
>
> mutex_unlock(&wq_pool_attach_mutex);
>
> @@ -4972,9 +4977,11 @@ static void rebind_workers(struct worker
> * of all workers first and then clear UNBOUND. As we're called
> * from CPU_ONLINE, the following shouldn't fail.
> */
> - for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool)
> + for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool) {
> WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task,
> pool->attrs->cpumask) < 0);
> + kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, true);

Will the schedule break affinity in the middle of these two lines due to
patch4 allowing it and result in Paul's reported splat.

> + }
>
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
>
>
>