Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Fix kernel-doc comment of unplug_oldest_pwq()

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Fri Feb 09 2024 - 11:28:23 EST


(cc'ing Jonathan and quoting whole body)

I'm not necessarily against the patch but at least from in-code
documentation POV the diagram being in the function comment seems better.
Jonathan, do you happen to know a better way to address this?

Thanks.

On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 09:58:50AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> It turns out that it is not a good idea to put an ASCII diagram in the
> kernel-doc comment of unplug_oldest_pwq() as the tool puts out warnings
> about its format and will likely render it illegible anyway. Break the
> ASCII diagram out into its own comment block inside the function to
> avoid this problem.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/workqueue.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index cd2c6edc5c66..f622f535bc00 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -1790,25 +1790,29 @@ static bool pwq_activate_first_inactive(struct pool_workqueue *pwq, bool fill)
> * unplug_oldest_pwq - restart an oldest plugged pool_workqueue
> * @wq: workqueue_struct to be restarted
> *
> - * pwq's are linked into wq->pwqs with the oldest first. For ordered
> - * workqueues, only the oldest pwq is unplugged, the others are plugged to
> - * suspend execution until the oldest one is drained. When this happens, the
> - * next oldest one (first plugged pwq in iteration) will be unplugged to
> - * restart work item execution to ensure proper work item ordering.
> - *
> - * dfl_pwq --------------+ [P] - plugged
> - * |
> - * v
> - * pwqs -> A -> B [P] -> C [P] (newest)
> - * | | |
> - * 1 3 5
> - * | | |
> - * 2 4 6
> + * This function should only be called for ordered workqueues where only the
> + * oldest pwq is unplugged, the others are plugged to suspend execution until
> + * the oldest one is drained and removed. When this happens, the next oldest
> + * one will be unplugged to restart work item execution to ensure proper work
> + * item ordering. Note that pwq's are linked into wq->pwqs with the oldest
> + * first, so the first one in the list is the oldest.
> */
> static void unplug_oldest_pwq(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
> {
> struct pool_workqueue *pwq;
>
> + /*
> + * Layout of an ordered workqueue during a wq_unbound_cpumask update:
> + *
> + * dfl_pwq --------------+ [P] - plugged
> + * |
> + * v
> + * pwqs -> A -> B [P] -> C [P] (newest)
> + * | | |
> + * 1 3 5
> + * | | |
> + * 2 4 6
> + */
> lockdep_assert_held(&wq->mutex);
>
> /* Caller should make sure that pwqs isn't empty before calling */
> --
> 2.39.3
>

--
tejun