All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: len.brown@intel.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org,
	jiangshanlai@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	zwisler@kernel.org, pavel@ucw.cz, rafael@kernel.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 1/5] workqueue: Provide queue_work_near to queue work near a given NUMA node
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:49:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <92d8b57f-db37-e4bf-b69f-3ab5c4440ea0@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181002184127.GH270328@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>

On 10/2/2018 11:41 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:23:26AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> Yeah, it's all in wq_select_unbound_cpu().  Right now, if the
>>> requested cpu isn't in wq_unbound_cpumask, it falls back to dumb
>>> round-robin.  We can probably do better there and find the nearest
>>> node considering topology.
>>
>> Well if we could get wq_select_unbound_cpu doing the right thing
>> based on node topology that would be most of my work solved right
>> there. Basically I could just pass WQ_CPU_UNBOUND with the correct
>> node and it would take care of getting to the right CPU.
> 
> Yeah, sth like that.  It might be better to keep the function to take
> cpu for consistency as everything else passes around cpu.
> 
>>>> The question I have then is what should I do about workqueues that
>>>> aren't WQ_UNBOUND if they attempt to use queue_work_near? In that
>>>
>>> Hmm... yeah, let's just use queue_work_on() for now.  We can sort it
>>> out later and users could already do that anyway.
>>
>> So are you saying I should just return an error for now if somebody
>> tries to use something other than an unbound workqueue with
>> queue_work_near, and expect everyone else to just use queue_work_on
>> for the other workqueue types?
> 
> Oh, I meant that let's not add a new interface for now and just use
> queue_work_on() for your use case too.
> 
> Thanks.

So the only issue is that I was hoping to get away with not having to 
add additional preemption. That was the motivation behind doing 
queue_work_near as I could just wrap it all in the same local_irq_save 
that way I don't have to worry about the CPU I am on changing.

What I may look at doing is just greatly reducing the 
workqueue_select_unbound_cpu_near function to essentially just perform a 
few tests and then will just use the results from a cpumask_any_and of 
the cpumask_of_node and the cpu_online_mask. I'll probably rename it 
while I am at it since I am going to probably be getting away from the 
"unbound" checks in the logic.

- Alex

_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, len.brown@intel.com,
	dave.jiang@intel.com, rafael@kernel.org,
	vishal.l.verma@intel.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, pavel@ucw.cz,
	zwisler@kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 1/5] workqueue: Provide queue_work_near to queue work near a given NUMA node
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:49:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <92d8b57f-db37-e4bf-b69f-3ab5c4440ea0@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181002184127.GH270328@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>

On 10/2/2018 11:41 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:23:26AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> Yeah, it's all in wq_select_unbound_cpu().  Right now, if the
>>> requested cpu isn't in wq_unbound_cpumask, it falls back to dumb
>>> round-robin.  We can probably do better there and find the nearest
>>> node considering topology.
>>
>> Well if we could get wq_select_unbound_cpu doing the right thing
>> based on node topology that would be most of my work solved right
>> there. Basically I could just pass WQ_CPU_UNBOUND with the correct
>> node and it would take care of getting to the right CPU.
> 
> Yeah, sth like that.  It might be better to keep the function to take
> cpu for consistency as everything else passes around cpu.
> 
>>>> The question I have then is what should I do about workqueues that
>>>> aren't WQ_UNBOUND if they attempt to use queue_work_near? In that
>>>
>>> Hmm... yeah, let's just use queue_work_on() for now.  We can sort it
>>> out later and users could already do that anyway.
>>
>> So are you saying I should just return an error for now if somebody
>> tries to use something other than an unbound workqueue with
>> queue_work_near, and expect everyone else to just use queue_work_on
>> for the other workqueue types?
> 
> Oh, I meant that let's not add a new interface for now and just use
> queue_work_on() for your use case too.
> 
> Thanks.

So the only issue is that I was hoping to get away with not having to 
add additional preemption. That was the motivation behind doing 
queue_work_near as I could just wrap it all in the same local_irq_save 
that way I don't have to worry about the CPU I am on changing.

What I may look at doing is just greatly reducing the 
workqueue_select_unbound_cpu_near function to essentially just perform a 
few tests and then will just use the results from a cpumask_any_and of 
the cpumask_of_node and the cpu_online_mask. I'll probably rename it 
while I am at it since I am going to probably be getting away from the 
"unbound" checks in the logic.

- Alex


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: len.brown-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
	linux-pm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
	linux-nvdimm-hn68Rpc1hR1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org,
	jiangshanlai-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
	linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	zwisler-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
	pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org,
	rafael-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
	akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 1/5] workqueue: Provide queue_work_near to queue work near a given NUMA node
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:49:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <92d8b57f-db37-e4bf-b69f-3ab5c4440ea0@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181002184127.GH270328-LpCCV3molIbIZ9tKgghJQw2O0Ztt9esIQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org>

On 10/2/2018 11:41 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:23:26AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> Yeah, it's all in wq_select_unbound_cpu().  Right now, if the
>>> requested cpu isn't in wq_unbound_cpumask, it falls back to dumb
>>> round-robin.  We can probably do better there and find the nearest
>>> node considering topology.
>>
>> Well if we could get wq_select_unbound_cpu doing the right thing
>> based on node topology that would be most of my work solved right
>> there. Basically I could just pass WQ_CPU_UNBOUND with the correct
>> node and it would take care of getting to the right CPU.
> 
> Yeah, sth like that.  It might be better to keep the function to take
> cpu for consistency as everything else passes around cpu.
> 
>>>> The question I have then is what should I do about workqueues that
>>>> aren't WQ_UNBOUND if they attempt to use queue_work_near? In that
>>>
>>> Hmm... yeah, let's just use queue_work_on() for now.  We can sort it
>>> out later and users could already do that anyway.
>>
>> So are you saying I should just return an error for now if somebody
>> tries to use something other than an unbound workqueue with
>> queue_work_near, and expect everyone else to just use queue_work_on
>> for the other workqueue types?
> 
> Oh, I meant that let's not add a new interface for now and just use
> queue_work_on() for your use case too.
> 
> Thanks.

So the only issue is that I was hoping to get away with not having to 
add additional preemption. That was the motivation behind doing 
queue_work_near as I could just wrap it all in the same local_irq_save 
that way I don't have to worry about the CPU I am on changing.

What I may look at doing is just greatly reducing the 
workqueue_select_unbound_cpu_near function to essentially just perform a 
few tests and then will just use the results from a cpumask_any_and of 
the cpumask_of_node and the cpu_online_mask. I'll probably rename it 
while I am at it since I am going to probably be getting away from the 
"unbound" checks in the logic.

- Alex

  reply	other threads:[~2018-10-02 20:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-26 21:51 [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 0/5] Add NUMA aware async_schedule calls Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 1/5] workqueue: Provide queue_work_near to queue work near a given NUMA node Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:53   ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 21:53     ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 21:53     ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 22:05     ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 22:05       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 22:09       ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 22:09         ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 22:09         ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 22:19         ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 22:19           ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-01 16:01           ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-01 16:01             ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-01 16:01             ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-01 21:54             ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-01 21:54               ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-01 21:54               ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 17:41               ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 17:41                 ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 17:41                 ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 18:23                 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 18:23                   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 18:23                   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 18:41                   ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 18:41                     ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 18:41                     ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 20:49                     ` Alexander Duyck [this message]
2018-10-02 20:49                       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 20:49                       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 2/5] async: Add support for queueing on specific " Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27  0:31   ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27  0:31     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27  0:31     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27 15:16     ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 15:16       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 15:16       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 19:48       ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27 19:48         ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27 20:03         ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 20:03           ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 3/5] driver core: Probe devices asynchronously instead of the driver Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27  0:48   ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27  0:48     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27  0:48     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27 15:27     ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 15:27       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 15:27       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-28  2:48       ` Dan Williams
2018-09-28  2:48         ` Dan Williams
2018-09-28  2:48         ` Dan Williams
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 4/5] driver core: Use new async_schedule_dev command Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-28 17:42   ` Dan Williams
2018-09-28 17:42     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-28 17:42     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-26 21:52 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 5/5] nvdimm: Schedule device registration on node local to the device Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:52   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:52   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-28 17:46   ` Dan Williams
2018-09-28 17:46     ` Dan Williams

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=92d8b57f-db37-e4bf-b69f-3ab5c4440ea0@linux.intel.com \
    --to=alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=zwisler@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.