Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] workqueue: Enable unbound cpumask update on ordered workqueues

[Juri Lelli]

On 02/02/24 14:03, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 2/2/24 12:07, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 03:55:15PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > Indeed. I believe this is what my 3/4 [1] was trying to cure, though. I
> > > still think that with current code the new_attr->cpumask gets first
> > > correctly initialized considering unbound_cpumask
> > > 
> > > apply_wqattrs_prepare ->
> > >    copy_workqueue_attrs(new_attrs, attrs);
> > >    wqattrs_actualize_cpumask(new_attrs, unbound_cpumask);
> > > 
> > > but then overwritten further below using cpu_possible_mask
> > > 
> > > apply_wqattrs_prepare ->
> > >    copy_workqueue_attrs(new_attrs, attrs);
> > >    cpumask_and(new_attrs->cpumask, new_attrs->cpumask, cpu_possible_mask);
> > > 
> > > operation that I honestly seem to still fail to grasp why we need to do.
> > > :)
> > So, imagine the following scenario on a system with four CPUs:
> > 
> > 1. Initially both wq_unbound_cpumask and wq A's cpumask are 0xf.
> > 
> > 2. wq_unbound_cpumask is set to 0x3. A's effective is 0x3.
> > 
> > 3. A's cpumask is set to 0xe, A's effective is 0x3.
> > 
> > 4. wq_unbound_cpumask is restore to 0xf. A's effective should become 0xe.
> > 
> > The reason why we're saving what user requested rather than effective is to
> > be able to do #4 so that the effective is always what's currently allowed
> > from what the user specified for the workqueue.

Thanks for the explanation!

> > Now, if you want the current effective cpumask, that always coincides with
> > the workqueue's dfl_pwq's __pod_cpumask and if you look at the current
> > wq/for-6.9 branch, that's accessible through unbound_effective_cpumask()
> > helper.
> 
> Thank for the explanation, we will use the new unbound_effective_cpumask()
> helper.

Right, that should indeed work.

Best,
Juri