lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch] workqueue: schedule WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work on wq_unbound_cpumask CPUs
From
Date
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 11:25 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:19:00PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Ew, looking at the numbers, they may prefer to either a) pretend to not
> > notice, or b) scurry off to HPC'R'US store if a) won't fly ;-)
>
> Yeah, there are a lot of them. The sad part is that only very few of
> them would actually need local binding for correctness. :(

I'm going to end this thread with an under my breath mutter. Before I
do that, note that I went and beat up three different boxen over days
before turning trivial little patchlet loose, ie I was quite paranoid
despite the below, "No way Jose" was not entirely unexpected.

Mutter: WORK_CPU_UNBOUND is about as far from a local execution
guarantee as it gets, and not only is it prominently displayed for all
to see...

/**
* queue_work - queue work on a workqueue
* @wq: workqueue to use
* @work: work to queue
*
* Returns %false if @work was already on a queue, %true otherwise.
*
* We queue the work to the CPU on which it was submitted, but if the CPU dies
* it can be processed by another CPU.
*/
static inline bool queue_work(struct workqueue_struct *wq,
struct work_struct *work)
{
return queue_work_on(WORK_CPU_UNBOUND, wq, work);
}

...there's nothing ambiguous about that. While it states that we queue
locally, it also clearly states that local execution is NOT guaranteed,
making assumption thereof a BUG, which in turn makes it seem a bit odd
to tie fixing up nohz_full a little to auditing and fixing every booboo
ever made (unlikely to ever happen). It would appear that the only way
anyone could ever have sanely assume local execution, WORK_CPU_UNBOUND
aside, is to have called get_online_cpus() before queueing any work.

Mutter expressed, it's not a big hairy deal, anyone using an SMP kernel
with an expectation of zero perturbation is doomed to be disappointed
anyway, patchlet just reduced noise a bit.

-Mike (mutter mutter mutter;)



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-24 06:01    [W:0.061 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site