linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] workqueue: use cpu_possible_mask instead of cpu_active_mask to break affinity
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:33:32 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJhGHyBG-7=zpNjDOXmgLwOiE26YHJ6vSfY_ZGH0s7M4QD0bJw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <X9egDheiQPLdR0IS@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:25 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:54:49PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
> >
> > There might be other CPU online. The workers losing binding on its CPU
> > should have chance to work on those later onlined CPUs.
> >
> > Fixes: 06249738a41a ("workqueue: Manually break affinity on hotplug")
> > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/workqueue.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> > index aba71ab359dd..1f5b8385c0cf 100644
> > --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> > +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> > @@ -4909,8 +4909,9 @@ static void unbind_workers(int cpu)
> >
> >               raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
> >
> > +             /* don't rely on the scheduler to force break affinity for us. */
> >               for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool)
> > -                     WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, cpu_active_mask) < 0);
> > +                     WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, cpu_possible_mask) < 0);
>
> Please explain this one.. it's not making sense. Also the Changelog
> doesn't seem remotely related to the actual change.

If the scheduler doesn't break affinity for us any more, I hope that
we can "emulate" previous behavior when the scheduler did breaks affinity
for us. The behavior is "changing the cpumask to cpu_possible_mask".

And there might be some other CPUs online later while the worker is
still running with the pending work items.  I hope the worker can also
use the later online CPUs as before.  If we use cpu_active_mask here,
we can't achieve this.   This is what the changelog said.  I don't know
which wording is better, I will combine both if this reason stands.


>
> Afaict this is actively wrong.
>
> Also, can you please not Cc me parts of a series? That's bloody
> annoying.


Sorry about it.  I was taught "once don't send the whole series to
someone" and very probably I missed the conditions about it.  I think
in this case, I should Cc you the whole series.  May I?

Thanks
Lai

  reply	other threads:[~2020-12-15  8:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-14 15:54 [PATCH 00/10] workqueue: break affinity initiatively Lai Jiangshan
2020-12-14 15:54 ` [PATCH 01/10] workqueue: restore unbound_workers' cpumask correctly Lai Jiangshan
2020-12-14 15:54 ` [PATCH 02/10] workqueue: use cpu_possible_mask instead of cpu_active_mask to break affinity Lai Jiangshan
2020-12-14 17:25   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-15  8:33     ` Lai Jiangshan [this message]
2020-12-15  8:40     ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-16 14:32   ` Tejun Heo
2020-12-14 15:54 ` [PATCH 03/10] workqueue: Manually break affinity on pool detachment Lai Jiangshan
2020-12-14 15:54 ` [PATCH 04/10] workqueue: don't set the worker's cpumask when kthread_bind_mask() Lai Jiangshan
2020-12-16 14:39   ` Tejun Heo
2020-12-14 15:54 ` [PATCH 05/10] workqueue: introduce wq_online_cpumask Lai Jiangshan
2020-12-14 15:54 ` [PATCH 06/10] workqueue: use wq_online_cpumask in restore_unbound_workers_cpumask() Lai Jiangshan
2020-12-14 15:54 ` [PATCH 07/10] workqueue: Manually break affinity on hotplug for unbound pool Lai Jiangshan
2020-12-16 14:50   ` Tejun Heo
2020-12-14 15:54 ` [PATCH 08/10] workqueue: reorganize workqueue_online_cpu() Lai Jiangshan
2020-12-14 15:54 ` [PATCH 09/10] workqueue: reorganize workqueue_offline_cpu() unbind_workers() Lai Jiangshan
2020-12-14 15:54 ` [PATCH 10/10] workqueue: Fix affinity of kworkers when attaching into pool Lai Jiangshan
2020-12-15 15:03   ` Valentin Schneider
2020-12-14 17:36 ` [PATCH 00/10] workqueue: break affinity initiatively Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-15  5:44   ` Lai Jiangshan
2020-12-15  7:50     ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-15  8:14       ` Lai Jiangshan
2020-12-15  8:49         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-15  9:46           ` Lai Jiangshan
2020-12-16 14:30 ` Tejun Heo

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='CAJhGHyBG-7=zpNjDOXmgLwOiE26YHJ6vSfY_ZGH0s7M4QD0bJw@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=laijs@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    /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).