From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to -mm tree
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 19:00:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120203180030.GA8842@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120130172851.GD3355@google.com>
Hi Tejun,
On 01/30, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 02:03:35PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Perhaps we can use another system_wq, but afaics WQ_UNBOUND makes sense
> > in this case. I mean, there is no reason to bind this work to any CPU.
> > See also below.
>
> I've been trying to nudge people away from using special wqs or flags
> unless really necessary. Other than non-reentrancy and strict
> ordering, all behaviors are mostly for optimization and using them
> incorrectly / spuriously usually doesn't cause any visible failure,
> making it very easy to get them wrong and if you have enough of wrong
> / unnecessary usages in tree, the whole thing gets really confusing
> and difficult to update in the future.
You know, I am a bit suprized. To me, it is the !WQ_UNBOUND case is
"special". IOW, I think we need some reason to bind the work to the
specific CPU.
> > > Is it expected consume large
> > > amount of CPU cycles?
> >
> > Currently __call_usermodehelper() does kernel_thread(), this is almost
> > all. But it can block waiting for kernel_execve().
>
> Blocking is completely fine on any workqueue.
I understand. But, the blocked worker "consumes" nr_active/worker.
> The only reason to
> require the use of unbound_wq is if work items would burn a lot of CPU
> cycles. In such cases, we want to let the scheduler have full
> jurisdiction instead of wq regulating concurrency.
I am starting to think I do not understand this code at all. OK,
perhaps unbound_wq should be used for cpu-intensive works only.
But why do you think that we should use a !WQ_UNBOUND workque
instead of khelper_wq? And why "a lot of CPU" is the only reason
for WQ_UNBOUND?
> * If work items are expected to consume large amount of CPU cycles (as
> in crypto work items), consider using system_unbound_wq / WQ_UNBOUND.
>
> * If per-domain concurrency limit is necessary (ie. the number of
> concurrent work items doing this particular task should be limited
> rather than consuming global system_wq limit), a dedicated workqueue
> would be better.
So I don't understand whether you like the idea to kill khelper_wq
and use some system_ wq or not (and fix the bug).
I do not really like the current patch. If nothing else, what if
UMH_WAIT_EXEC request actually needs another UMH_WAIT_EXEC/PROC
request to succeed?
Tetsuo, we spent a lot of time discussing other problems. What
do you think about s/khelper/system/ instead of this patch?
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-03 18:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-26 17:56 + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to -mm tree Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-27 2:55 ` Rusty Russell
2012-01-27 14:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-29 0:49 ` Rusty Russell
2012-01-29 16:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-29 23:26 ` Rusty Russell
2012-01-30 0:25 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-30 13:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-30 17:28 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-03 18:00 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2012-02-03 19:26 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-04 12:56 ` + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to-mm tree Tetsuo Handa
2012-02-06 17:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-30 12:38 ` + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to -mm tree Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120203180030.GA8842@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).