Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Use active mask for new worker when pool is DISASSOCIATED

From: Lai Jiangshan
Date: Wed Jul 13 2022 - 05:53:08 EST




CC Peter.
Peter has changed the CPU binding code in workqueue.c.

I'm not understanding the problem enough, if kthread_bind_mask() is buggy
in workqueue.c, it would be buggy in other places too.


On 2022/7/7 17:05, Schspa Shi wrote:

- if (worker->rescue_wq)
- set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, pool->attrs->cpumask);
+ if (worker->rescue_wq) {
+ if (pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED)
+ set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, cpu_active_mask);
+ else
+ set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, pool->attrs->cpumask);
+ }

For unbound pools (which also has POOL_DISASSOCIATED), pool->attrs->cpumask
should be used if pool->attrs->cpumask has active cpu.


+
+ mutex_lock(&wq_pool_attach_mutex);
+ if ((pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED)) {
+ /* We can't call get_online_cpus, there will be deadlock
+ * cpu_active_mask will no change, because we have
+ * wq_pool_attach_mutex hold.
+ **/
+ kthread_bind_mask(worker->task, cpu_active_mask);
+ } else {
+ kthread_bind_mask(worker->task, pool->attrs->cpumask);
+ }
+ mutex_unlock(&wq_pool_attach_mutex);


For unbound pools, pool->attrs->cpumask should be used if pool->attrs->cpumask
has active cpu.

wq_pool_attach_mutex is held here and in worker_attach_to_pool() which smells bad.



The change is complex. And if kthread_bind_mask() can't work as expected here,
the change I prefer would be:

diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 4056f2a3f9d5..1ad8aef5fe98 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -1862,6 +1862,12 @@ static void worker_attach_to_pool(struct worker *worker,
{
mutex_lock(&wq_pool_attach_mutex);

+ /*
+ * set_cpus_allowed_ptr() will fail if the cpumask doesn't have any
+ * online CPUs. It'll be re-applied when any of the CPUs come up.
+ */
+ set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, pool->attrs->cpumask);
+
/*
* The wq_pool_attach_mutex ensures %POOL_DISASSOCIATED remains
* stable across this function. See the comments above the flag
@@ -1872,9 +1877,6 @@ static void worker_attach_to_pool(struct worker *worker,
else
kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, pool->cpu);

- if (worker->rescue_wq)
- set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, pool->attrs->cpumask);
-
list_add_tail(&worker->node, &pool->workers);
worker->pool = pool;

@@ -1952,7 +1954,7 @@ static struct worker *create_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
goto fail;

set_user_nice(worker->task, pool->attrs->nice);
- kthread_bind_mask(worker->task, pool->attrs->cpumask);
+ worker->flags |= PF_NO_SETAFFINITY;

/* successful, attach the worker to the pool */
worker_attach_to_pool(worker, pool);
@@ -4270,7 +4272,7 @@ static int init_rescuer(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
}

wq->rescuer = rescuer;
- kthread_bind_mask(rescuer->task, cpu_possible_mask);
+ rescuer->flags |= PF_NO_SETAFFINITY;
wake_up_process(rescuer->task);

return 0;


It is untested. It effectively reverts the commit 640f17c82460e
("workqueue: Restrict affinity change to rescuer").
It avoids using kthread_bind_mask().