Re: Re: why use alloc_workqueue instead of create_singlethread_workqueue to create nvme_workq

Re: Re: why use alloc_workqueue instead of create_singlethread_workqueue to create nvme_workq

[shhuiw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2899 bytes --]

Thanks, Keith!

Any idea on how to fix the warning? Just drop the WQ_MEM_RECLAIM for nvme_workq, or
lru drain work schedule should be changed?


On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:43:34PM +0800, Wang Sheng-Hui wrote:
> Recently I noticed warning on NVME probe if CMA is enabled on my SoC platform
> (ZONE_DMA, ZONE_DMA32 and CMA enabled in the config file):
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 6 at linux/kernel/workqueue.c:2448 check_flush_dependency+0xb4/0x10c
> [    0.154083] [<fffffc00080d6de0>] check_flush_dependency+0xb4/0x10c
> [    0.154088] [<fffffc00080d8e80>] flush_work+0x54/0x140
> [    0.154092] [<fffffc0008166a0c>] lru_add_drain_all+0x138/0x188
> [    0.154097] [<fffffc00081ab2dc>] migrate_prep+0xc/0x18
> [    0.154101] [<fffffc0008160e88>] alloc_contig_range+0xf4/0x350
> [    0.154105] [<fffffc00081bcef8>] cma_alloc+0xec/0x1e4
> [    0.154110] [<fffffc0008446ad0>] dma_alloc_from_contiguous+0x38/0x40
> [    0.154114] [<fffffc00080a093c>] __dma_alloc+0x74/0x25c
> [    0.154119] [<fffffc00084828d8>] nvme_alloc_queue+0xcc/0x36c
> [    0.154123] [<fffffc0008484b2c>] nvme_reset_work+0x5c4/0xda8
> [    0.154128] [<fffffc00080d9528>] process_one_work+0x128/0x2ec
> [    0.154132] [<fffffc00080d9744>] worker_thread+0x58/0x434
> [    0.154136] [<fffffc00080df0ec>] kthread+0xd4/0xe8
> [    0.154141] [<fffffc0008093ac0>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x50
 
The lru drain work is scheduled on the system work queue, which is not
used for memory reclaim. But this work is used for swap, so maybe it
should be scheduled on a such a work queue, and this warning would go
away. Unless there's a reason not to have a system memory reclaim work
queue, I'll look into that.
 
> But the log only explained why changed to workqueue instead of schedule_work, 
> no comments why use alloc_workqueue instead of create_singlethread_workqueue,
> though 
 
We removed single threaded work queues so multiple controllers can be
probed in parallel.
 
>        "The original create_*workqueue() functions are deprecated and scheduled for removal." 
> (Documentation/workqueue.txt; https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/575570/). 
> 
> The key point is "__WQ_LEGACY" was dropped. 
> If I change to use "nvme_workq = create_singlethread_workqueue("nvme");",  then no
> warning on NVME probe in my case.
> 
> My question is, why you decide drop the flag "__WQ_LEGACY" for nvme_workq?
 
I didn't decide to drop this. The flag is used for deprecated usage,
but this is new usage.
 
I think the real issue is nvme uses a WQ_MEM_RECLAIM work queue but swap
does not. One of these probably needs to change.
 
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvme mailing list
Linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme
 


Regards,
Sheng-Hui



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5085 bytes --]

Re: Re: why use alloc_workqueue instead of create_singlethread_workqueue to create nvme_workq

[Keith Busch]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 10:54:27AM +0800, shhuiw@foxmail.com wrote:
> Thanks, Keith!
> 
> Any idea on how to fix the warning? Just drop the WQ_MEM_RECLAIM for nvme_workq, or
> lru drain work schedule should be changed?

I sent request to lkml and linux-mm list, trying to resurrect this older
proposal from Tejun Heo:

  https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/574623/

Not much interest yet, though.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>