Re: workqueue: Only kick a worker after thawed or for an unbound workqueue

From: Yunfeng Ye
Date: Wed Nov 18 2020 - 01:27:36 EST




On 2020/11/18 12:06, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:33 PM Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> In realtime scenario, We do not want to have interference on the
>> isolated cpu cores. but when invoking alloc_workqueue() for percpu wq
>> on the housekeeping cpu, it kick a kworker on the isolated cpu.
>>
>> alloc_workqueue
>> pwq_adjust_max_active
>> wake_up_worker
>>
>> The comment in pwq_adjust_max_active() said:
>> "Need to kick a worker after thawed or an unbound wq's
>> max_active is bumped"
>>
>> So it is unnecessary to kick a kworker for percpu wq's when
>> alloc_workqueue. this patch only kick a worker after thawed or for an
>> unbound workqueue.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> kernel/workqueue.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> index c41c3c17b86a..80f7bbd4889f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> @@ -3696,14 +3696,16 @@ static void pwq_unbound_release_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> - * pwq_adjust_max_active - update a pwq's max_active to the current setting
>> + * pwq_adjust_max_active_and_kick - update a pwq's max_active to the current setting
>> * @pwq: target pool_workqueue
>> + * @force_kick: force to kick a worker
>> *
>> * If @pwq isn't freezing, set @pwq->max_active to the associated
>> * workqueue's saved_max_active and activate delayed work items
>> * accordingly. If @pwq is freezing, clear @pwq->max_active to zero.
>> */
>> -static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
>> +static void pwq_adjust_max_active_and_kick(struct pool_workqueue *pwq,
>> + bool force_kick)
>> {
>> struct workqueue_struct *wq = pwq->wq;
>> bool freezable = wq->flags & WQ_FREEZABLE;
>> @@ -3733,9 +3735,10 @@ static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
>>
>> /*
>> * Need to kick a worker after thawed or an unbound wq's
>> - * max_active is bumped. It's a slow path. Do it always.
>> + * max_active is bumped.
>
>
> Hello
>
> Thanks for reporting the problem.
>
> But I don't like to add an argument. The waking up is called
> always just because it was considered no harm and it is slow
> path. But it can still be possible to detect if the waking up
> is really needed based on the actual activation of delayed works.
>
> The previous lines are:
>
> while (!list_empty(&pwq->delayed_works) &&
> pwq->nr_active < pwq->max_active)
> pwq_activate_first_delayed(pwq);
>
> And you can record the old pwq->nr_active before these lines:
>
> int old_nr_active = pwq->nr_active;
>
> while (!list_empty(&pwq->delayed_works) &&
> pwq->nr_active < pwq->max_active)
> pwq_activate_first_delayed(pwq);
>
> /* please add more comments here, see 951a078a5 */
> if (old_nr_active < pwq->nr_active) {
> if (!old_nr_active || (wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND))
> wake_up_worker(pwq->pool);
> }
>
Ok, I will send a patch v2.
Thanks.

>
> Thanks for your work.
> Lai.
>
>> */
>> - wake_up_worker(pwq->pool);
>> + if (force_kick || (wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND))
>> + wake_up_worker(pwq->pool);
>> } else {
>> pwq->max_active = 0;
>> }
>> @@ -3743,6 +3746,11 @@ static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
>> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pwq->pool->lock, flags);
>> }
>>
>> +static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
>> +{
>> + pwq_adjust_max_active_and_kick(pwq, false);
>> +}
>> +
>> /* initialize newly alloced @pwq which is associated with @wq and @pool */
>> static void init_pwq(struct pool_workqueue *pwq, struct workqueue_struct *wq,
>> struct worker_pool *pool)
>> @@ -5252,7 +5260,7 @@ void thaw_workqueues(void)
>> list_for_each_entry(wq, &workqueues, list) {
>> mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
>> for_each_pwq(pwq, wq)
>> - pwq_adjust_max_active(pwq);
>> + pwq_adjust_max_active_and_kick(pwq, true);
>> mutex_unlock(&wq->mutex);
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 2.18.4
> .
>