Re: [PATCH 05/13] wifi: ath10/11/12k: Use alloc_ordered_workqueue() to create ordered workqueues

[Kalle Valo]

Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> BACKGROUND
> ==========
> 
> When multiple work items are queued to a workqueue, their execution order
> doesn't match the queueing order. They may get executed in any order and
> simultaneously. When fully serialized execution - one by one in the queueing
> order - is needed, an ordered workqueue should be used which can be created
> with alloc_ordered_workqueue().
> 
> However, alloc_ordered_workqueue() was a later addition. Before it, an
> ordered workqueue could be obtained by creating an UNBOUND workqueue with
> @max_active==1. This originally was an implementation side-effect which was
> broken by 4c16bd327c74 ("workqueue: restore WQ_UNBOUND/max_active==1 to be
> ordered"). Because there were users that depended on the ordered execution,
> 5c0338c68706 ("workqueue: restore WQ_UNBOUND/max_active==1 to be ordered")
> made workqueue allocation path to implicitly promote UNBOUND workqueues w/
> @max_active==1 to ordered workqueues.
> 
> While this has worked okay, overloading the UNBOUND allocation interface
> this way creates other issues. It's difficult to tell whether a given
> workqueue actually needs to be ordered and users that legitimately want a
> min concurrency level wq unexpectedly gets an ordered one instead. With
> planned UNBOUND workqueue updates to improve execution locality and more
> prevalence of chiplet designs which can benefit from such improvements, this
> isn't a state we wanna be in forever.
> 
> This patch series audits all callsites that create an UNBOUND workqueue w/
> @max_active==1 and converts them to alloc_ordered_workqueue() as necessary.
> 
> WHAT TO LOOK FOR
> ================
> 
> The conversions are from
> 
>   alloc_workqueue(WQ_UNBOUND | flags, 1, args..)
> 
> to
> 
>   alloc_ordered_workqueue(flags, args...)
> 
> which don't cause any functional changes. If you know that fully ordered
> execution is not ncessary, please let me know. I'll drop the conversion and
> instead add a comment noting the fact to reduce confusion while conversion
> is in progress.
> 
> If you aren't fully sure, it's completely fine to let the conversion
> through. The behavior will stay exactly the same and we can always
> reconsider later.
> 
> As there are follow-up workqueue core changes, I'd really appreciate if the
> patch can be routed through the workqueue tree w/ your acks. Thanks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I run quick smoke tests with ath11k and ath12k, didn't see any issues. Feel
free to take via the workqueue tree:

Acked-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/20230509015032.3768622-6-tj@xxxxxxxxxx/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches