lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 7/7] workqueue: Replace pool lock with preemption disabling in wq_worker_sleeping()
Hello,

On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 03:35:43PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
>
> Once upon a time, wq_worker_sleeping() was called with rq lock held,
> so wq_worker_sleeping() can not use pool lock. Instead it used "X:"
> protection: preemption disabled on local cpu and wq_worker_sleeping()
> didn't depend on rq lock to work even with it held.
>
> Now, wq_worker_sleeping() isn't called with rq lock held and is using
> pool lock. But the functionality of "X:" protection isn't removed and
> wq_worker_running() is still using it.
>
> So we can also use "X:" protection in wq_worker_sleeping() and avoid
> locking the pool lock.
>
> This patch also documents that only idle_list.next is under "X:"
> protection, not the whole idle_list because destroy_worker() in idle
> timer can remove non-first idle workers. Idle timer can be possible
> strayed in different CPU, or even in the same CPU, it can interrupt
> preemption disabled context.

It's nice to go back to not needing to grab pool lock in the worker sleeping
path but I'm not sure it actually matters. This isn't in a red-hot path and
we're touching a bunch of stuff in the pool anyway, so the overhead of
grabbing a lock which likely isn't too contended shouldn't matter all that
much. So, maybe it'd be better to just keep things simple?

Thanks.

--
tejun

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-09 23:15    [W:0.068 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site