Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 18:45 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 08/06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > > I suspect most of the barrier/flush semantics could be replaced with
> > > > completions from specific work items.
> > 
> > Hm. But this is exactly how it works?
> 
> Yes, barriers work by enqueueing work and waiting for that one work item
> to fall out, thereby knowing that all previous work has been completed.
> 
> My point was that most flushes are there to wait for a previously
> enqueued work item, and might as well wait for that one.
> 
> Let me try to illustrate: a regular pattern is, we enqueue work A and
> then flush the whole queue to ensure A is processed. So instead of
> enqueueing A, then B in the barrier code, and wait for B to pop out, we
> might as well wait for A to begin with.

This is a bit off-topic, but in that particular case we can do

	if (cancel_work_sync(&A))
		A->func(&A);

unless we want to execute ->func() on another CPU of course. It is easy to
implement flush_work() which waits for a single work_strcut, but it is not
so useful when it comes to schedule_on_each_cpu().

But I agree, flush_workqueue() should be avoided if possible. Not sure
it makes sense, but we can do something like below.

Oleg.

--- kernel/workqueue.c~	2007-07-28 16:58:17.000000000 +0400
+++ kernel/workqueue.c	2007-08-06 20:33:25.000000000 +0400
@@ -572,25 +572,54 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(schedule_delayed_work_on);
  *
  * schedule_on_each_cpu() is very slow.
  */
+
+struct xxx
+{
+	atomic_t count;
+	struct completion done;
+	work_func_t func;
+};
+
+struct yyy
+{
+	struct work_struct work;
+	struct xxx *xxx;
+};
+
+static void yyy_func(struct work_struct *work)
+{
+	struct xxx *xxx = container_of(work, struct yyy, work)->xxx;
+	xxx->func(work);
+
+	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&xxx->count))
+		complete(&xxx->done);
+}
+
 int schedule_on_each_cpu(work_func_t func)
 {
 	int cpu;
-	struct work_struct *works;
+	struct xxx xxx;
+	struct yyy *works;
 
-	works = alloc_percpu(struct work_struct);
+	init_completion(&xxx.done);
+	xxx.func = func;
+
+	works = alloc_percpu(struct yyy);
 	if (!works)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
 	preempt_disable();		/* CPU hotplug */
+	atomic_set(&xxx.count, num_online_cpus());
 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
-		struct work_struct *work = per_cpu_ptr(works, cpu);
+		struct yyy *yyy = per_cpu_ptr(works, cpu);
 
-		INIT_WORK(work, func);
-		set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING, work_data_bits(work));
-		__queue_work(per_cpu_ptr(keventd_wq->cpu_wq, cpu), work);
+		yyy->xxx = &xxx;
+		INIT_WORK(&yyy->work, yyy_func);
+		set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING, work_data_bits(&yyy->work));
+		__queue_work(per_cpu_ptr(keventd_wq->cpu_wq, cpu), &yyy->work);
 	}
 	preempt_enable();
-	flush_workqueue(keventd_wq);
+	wait_for_completion(&xxx.done);
 	free_percpu(works);
 	return 0;
 }

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/