Re: [RFC PATCH] workqueue: Unbind workers before sending them to exit()

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 05:57:43PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> It has been reported that isolated CPUs can suffer from interference due to
> per-CPU kworkers waking up just to die.
> 
> A surge of workqueue activity (sleeping workfn's exacerbate this) during
> initial setup can cause extra per-CPU kworkers to be spawned. Then, a
> latency-sensitive task can be running merrily on an isolated CPU only to be
> interrupted sometime later by a kworker marked for death (cf.
> IDLE_WORKER_TIMEOUT, 5 minutes after last kworker activity).
> 
> Affine kworkers to the wq_unbound_cpumask (which doesn't contain isolated
> CPUs, cf. HK_TYPE_WQ) before waking them up after marking them with
> WORKER_DIE.
> 
> This follows the logic of CPU hot-unplug, which has been packaged into
> helpers for the occasion.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/workqueue.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index 1ea50f6be843..0f1a25ea4924 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -1972,6 +1972,18 @@ static struct worker *create_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
>  	return NULL;
>  }
>  
> +static void unbind_worker(struct worker *worker)
> +{
> +	kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, -1);
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, wq_unbound_cpumask) < 0);
> +}
> +
> +static void rebind_worker(struct worker *worker, struct worker_pool *pool)
> +{
> +	kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, pool->cpu);
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, pool->attrs->cpumask) < 0);
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * destroy_worker - destroy a workqueue worker
>   * @worker: worker to be destroyed
> @@ -1999,6 +2011,16 @@ static void destroy_worker(struct worker *worker)
>  
>  	list_del_init(&worker->entry);
>  	worker->flags |= WORKER_DIE;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * We're sending that thread off to die, so any CPU would do. This is
> +	 * especially relevant for pcpu kworkers affined to an isolated CPU:
> +	 * we'd rather not interrupt an isolated CPU just for a kworker to
> +	 * do_exit().
> +	 */
> +	if (!(worker->flags & WORKER_UNBOUND))
> +		unbind_worker(worker);
> +
>  	wake_up_process(worker->task);
>  }
>  
> @@ -4999,10 +5021,8 @@ static void unbind_workers(int cpu)
>  
>  		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
>  
> -		for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool) {
> -			kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, -1);
> -			WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, wq_unbound_cpumask) < 0);
> -		}
> +		for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool)
> +			unbind_worker(worker);
>  
>  		mutex_unlock(&wq_pool_attach_mutex);
>  	}
> @@ -5027,11 +5047,8 @@ static void rebind_workers(struct worker_pool *pool)
>  	 * of all workers first and then clear UNBOUND.  As we're called
>  	 * from CPU_ONLINE, the following shouldn't fail.
>  	 */
> -	for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool) {
> -		kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, pool->cpu);
> -		WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task,
> -						  pool->attrs->cpumask) < 0);
> -	}
> +	for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool)
> +		rebind_worker(worker, pool);
>  
>  	raw_spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
>  
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 
> 

Reviewed-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>