| Message ID | 20230421025046.4008499-4-tj@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | None | expand |
On 4/20/23 10:50 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > BACKGROUND > ========== > > When multiple work items are queued to a workqueue, their execution order > doesn't match the queueing order. They may get executed in any order and > simultaneously. When fully serialized execution - one by one in the queueing > order - is needed, an ordered workqueue should be used which can be created > with alloc_ordered_workqueue(). > > However, alloc_ordered_workqueue() was a later addition. Before it, an > ordered workqueue could be obtained by creating an UNBOUND workqueue with > @max_active==1. This originally was an implementation side-effect which was > broken by 4c16bd327c74 ("workqueue: restore WQ_UNBOUND/max_active==1 to be > ordered"). Because there were users that depended on the ordered execution, > 5c0338c68706 ("workqueue: restore WQ_UNBOUND/max_active==1 to be ordered") > made workqueue allocation path to implicitly promote UNBOUND workqueues w/ > @max_active==1 to ordered workqueues. > > While this has worked okay, overloading the UNBOUND allocation interface > this way creates other issues. It's difficult to tell whether a given > workqueue actually needs to be ordered and users that legitimately want a > min concurrency level wq unexpectedly gets an ordered one instead. With > planned UNBOUND workqueue updates to improve execution locality and more > prevalence of chiplet designs which can benefit from such improvements, this > isn't a state we wanna be in forever. > > This patch series audits all callsites that create an UNBOUND workqueue w/ > @max_active==1 and converts them to alloc_ordered_workqueue() as necessary. > > WHAT TO LOOK FOR > ================ > > The conversions are from > > alloc_workqueue(WQ_UNBOUND | flags, 1, args..) > > to > > alloc_ordered_workqueue(flags, args...) > > which don't cause any functional changes. If you know that fully ordered > execution is not ncessary, please let me know. I'll drop the conversion and > instead add a comment noting the fact to reduce confusion while conversion > is in progress. > > If you aren't fully sure, it's completely fine to let the conversion > through. The behavior will stay exactly the same and we can always > reconsider later. > > As there are follow-up workqueue core changes, I'd really appreciate if the > patch can be routed through the workqueue tree w/ your acks. Thanks. > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> > Cc: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@cornelisnetworks.com> > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> > Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> > Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > --- > drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/init.c | 7 +++---- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/init.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/init.c > index 62b6c5020039..e03d867cda13 100644 > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/init.c > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/init.c > @@ -755,14 +755,13 @@ static int create_workqueues(struct hfi1_devdata *dd) > } > if (!ppd->link_wq) { > /* > - * Make the link workqueue single-threaded to enforce > + * Make the link workqueue ordered to enforce > * serialization. > */ > ppd->link_wq = > - alloc_workqueue( > + alloc_ordered_workqueue( > "hfi_link_%d_%d", > - WQ_SYSFS | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_UNBOUND, > - 1, /* max_active */ > + WQ_SYSFS | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, > dd->unit, pidx); > if (!ppd->link_wq) > goto wq_error; Seems OK to me. Acked-by: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@cornelisnetworks.com>
Applied to wq/for-6.5-cleanup-ordered. Thanks.
On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 01:56:20PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Applied to wq/for-6.5-cleanup-ordered.
This has WQ_SYSFS so can't be an ordered workqueue. Sorry, this is a pattern
I missed. Dropped the patch.
Thanks.
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/init.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/init.c index 62b6c5020039..e03d867cda13 100644 --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/init.c +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/init.c @@ -755,14 +755,13 @@ static int create_workqueues(struct hfi1_devdata *dd) } if (!ppd->link_wq) { /* - * Make the link workqueue single-threaded to enforce + * Make the link workqueue ordered to enforce * serialization. */ ppd->link_wq = - alloc_workqueue( + alloc_ordered_workqueue( "hfi_link_%d_%d", - WQ_SYSFS | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_UNBOUND, - 1, /* max_active */ + WQ_SYSFS | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, dd->unit, pidx); if (!ppd->link_wq) goto wq_error;
BACKGROUND ========== When multiple work items are queued to a workqueue, their execution order doesn't match the queueing order. They may get executed in any order and simultaneously. When fully serialized execution - one by one in the queueing order - is needed, an ordered workqueue should be used which can be created with alloc_ordered_workqueue(). However, alloc_ordered_workqueue() was a later addition. Before it, an ordered workqueue could be obtained by creating an UNBOUND workqueue with @max_active==1. This originally was an implementation side-effect which was broken by 4c16bd327c74 ("workqueue: restore WQ_UNBOUND/max_active==1 to be ordered"). Because there were users that depended on the ordered execution, 5c0338c68706 ("workqueue: restore WQ_UNBOUND/max_active==1 to be ordered") made workqueue allocation path to implicitly promote UNBOUND workqueues w/ @max_active==1 to ordered workqueues. While this has worked okay, overloading the UNBOUND allocation interface this way creates other issues. It's difficult to tell whether a given workqueue actually needs to be ordered and users that legitimately want a min concurrency level wq unexpectedly gets an ordered one instead. With planned UNBOUND workqueue updates to improve execution locality and more prevalence of chiplet designs which can benefit from such improvements, this isn't a state we wanna be in forever. This patch series audits all callsites that create an UNBOUND workqueue w/ @max_active==1 and converts them to alloc_ordered_workqueue() as necessary. WHAT TO LOOK FOR ================ The conversions are from alloc_workqueue(WQ_UNBOUND | flags, 1, args..) to alloc_ordered_workqueue(flags, args...) which don't cause any functional changes. If you know that fully ordered execution is not ncessary, please let me know. I'll drop the conversion and instead add a comment noting the fact to reduce confusion while conversion is in progress. If you aren't fully sure, it's completely fine to let the conversion through. The behavior will stay exactly the same and we can always reconsider later. As there are follow-up workqueue core changes, I'd really appreciate if the patch can be routed through the workqueue tree w/ your acks. Thanks. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Cc: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@cornelisnetworks.com> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org --- drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/init.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)