Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: dispatch kworker to housekeeping CPU when hctx cpumask is empty

[Ming Lei]

On Sun, Oct 11, 2026 at 10:21:01PM -0400, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2026 at 08:56:07PM -0500, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 11, 2026 at 8:29 PM Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Commit a46c27026da1 ("blk-mq: don't schedule block kworker on isolated
> > > CPUs") excluded isolated CPUs from hctx->cpumask to prevent worker
> > > threads from executing block work on isolated CPUs. When all CPUs mapped
> > > to a hardware queue are isolated (i.e. blk_mq_hctx_empty_cpumask(hctx)
> > > evaluates to true), blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu() returns WORK_CPU_UNBOUND with
> > > the intention of offloading execution.
> > >
> > > However, kblockd_workqueue is allocated as a per-CPU workqueue
> > > (WQ_PERCPU). When WORK_CPU_UNBOUND is queued on a per-CPU workqueue, the
> > > workqueue core resolves the target CPU via raw_smp_processor_id().
> > 
> > Then it looks like you need to fix WORK_CPU_UNBOUND, which has more wide uses,
> > if you think it is one problem.
> 
> Hi Ming,
> 
> Since kblockd_workqueue is WQ_PERCPU, the responsibility rests with blk-mq
> to provide a non-isolated CPU when dispatching &hctx->run_work, no?

Does every WORK_CPU_UNBOUND user have to handle it?

> 
> > > Consequently, if a task executing on an isolated CPU submits I/O and
> > > triggers an asynchronous queue dispatch with zero delay, &hctx->run_work
> > > is queued directly onto the local isolated CPU's worker pool. This
> > 
> > If your theory is correct, why do botter to change to
> > housekeeping_any_cpu(HK_TYPE_TIMER)
> > if the user is submitting IO from an isolated CPU?
> 
> I suspect, steering the asynchronous dispatch to a housekeeping CPU is both
> architecturally necessary and fully aligned with the rest of the kernel,
> no? When a queue is plugged, throttled, or returns BLK_STS_RESOURCE, blk-mq
> defers execution to a background workqueue. That work runs asynchronously
> at some indeterminate time in the future, long after the thread has
> returned to its time-critical user loop. Having a kworker suddenly preempt
> the thread later is likely not desired.

We are talking about `if a task executing on an isolated CPU submits I/O `.

If the task has been submitting IO on isolated CPU, why can't we keep
scheduling WQ on isolated CPU for running blk-mq queue? I am not sure your change
makes any difference from user viewpoint.


Thanks,
Ming