Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] erofs: lazily initialize per-CPU workers and CPU hotplug hooks

[Gao Xiang]

On 2025/3/31 11:28, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On 2025/3/31 11:14, Sandeep Dhavale wrote:
> > Hi Gao,
> > > Do we really need to destroy workers on the last mount?
> > > it could cause many unnecessary init/uninit cycles.
> > >
> > > Or your requirement is just to defer per-CPU workers to
> > > the first mount?
> > >
> > > If your case is the latter, I guess you could just call
> > > erofs_init_percpu_workers() in z_erofs_init_super().
> > >
> > > > +{
> > > > +     if (atomic_dec_and_test(&erofs_mount_count))
> > >
> > > So in that case, we won't need erofs_mount_count anymore,
> > > you could just add a pcpu_worker_initialized atomic bool
> > > to control that.
> > Android devices go through suspend and resume cycles aggressively.
> >
> > And currently long running traces showed that erofs_workers being
> > created and destroyed without active erofs mount.
> > Your suggestion is good and could work for devices which do not use
> > erofs at all.
>
> > But if erofs is used once (and unmounted later),> we will not destroy the percpu workers.
>
> Is there a real use case in Android like this?  It
> would be really useful to write down something in the
> commit message.
>
> > Can you please expand a little bit more on your concern
> > > it could cause many unnecessary init/uninit cycles.
> > Did you mean on the cases where only one erofs fs
> > is mounted at time? Just trying to see if there is a better
> > way to address your concern.
>
> My concern is that it could slow down the mount time (on
> the single mount/unmount) if there are too many CPUs
> (especially on the server side.. 96 CPUs or more...)
>
> Or I guess if kworker CPU hotplug is not used at all
> for Android if "suspend and resume" latency is really
> important, could we just add a mode to always initialize
> pcpu kworkers for all possible CPUs.

Ok, ignore this part after more thinking.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang