Re: [PATCH v3 04/24] thread-pool: Implement generic (non-AIO) pool support

[Fabiano Rosas <farosas@suse.de>]

"Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name> writes:

> From: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com>
>
> Migration code wants to manage device data sending threads in one place.
>
> QEMU has an existing thread pool implementation, however it is limited
> to queuing AIO operations only and essentially has a 1:1 mapping between
> the current AioContext and the AIO ThreadPool in use.
>
> Implement generic (non-AIO) ThreadPool by essentially wrapping Glib's
> GThreadPool.
>
> This brings a few new operations on a pool:
> * thread_pool_wait() operation waits until all the submitted work requests
> have finished.
>
> * thread_pool_set_max_threads() explicitly sets the maximum thread count
> in the pool.
>
> * thread_pool_adjust_max_threads_to_work() adjusts the maximum thread count
> in the pool to equal the number of still waiting in queue or unfinished work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero <maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com>
> ---
>  include/block/thread-pool.h |   9 +++
>  util/thread-pool.c          | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 118 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/block/thread-pool.h b/include/block/thread-pool.h
> index 6f27eb085b45..3f9f66307b65 100644
> --- a/include/block/thread-pool.h
> +++ b/include/block/thread-pool.h
> @@ -38,5 +38,14 @@ BlockAIOCB *thread_pool_submit_aio(ThreadPoolFunc *func, void *arg,
>  int coroutine_fn thread_pool_submit_co(ThreadPoolFunc *func, void *arg);
>  void thread_pool_update_params(ThreadPoolAio *pool, struct AioContext *ctx);
>  
> +typedef struct ThreadPool ThreadPool;
> +
> +ThreadPool *thread_pool_new(void);
> +void thread_pool_free(ThreadPool *pool);
> +void thread_pool_submit(ThreadPool *pool, ThreadPoolFunc *func,
> +                        void *opaque, GDestroyNotify opaque_destroy);
> +void thread_pool_wait(ThreadPool *pool);
> +bool thread_pool_set_max_threads(ThreadPool *pool, int max_threads);
> +bool thread_pool_adjust_max_threads_to_work(ThreadPool *pool);
>  
>  #endif
> diff --git a/util/thread-pool.c b/util/thread-pool.c
> index 908194dc070f..d80c4181c897 100644
> --- a/util/thread-pool.c
> +++ b/util/thread-pool.c
> @@ -374,3 +374,112 @@ void thread_pool_free_aio(ThreadPoolAio *pool)
>      qemu_mutex_destroy(&pool->lock);
>      g_free(pool);
>  }
> +
> +struct ThreadPool { /* type safety */
> +    GThreadPool *t;
> +    size_t unfinished_el_ctr;
> +    QemuMutex unfinished_el_ctr_mutex;
> +    QemuCond unfinished_el_ctr_zero_cond;
> +};
> +
> +typedef struct {
> +    ThreadPoolFunc *func;
> +    void *opaque;
> +    GDestroyNotify opaque_destroy;
> +} ThreadPoolElement;
> +
> +static void thread_pool_func(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
> +{
> +    ThreadPool *pool = user_data;
> +    g_autofree ThreadPoolElement *el = data;
> +
> +    el->func(el->opaque);
> +
> +    if (el->opaque_destroy) {
> +        el->opaque_destroy(el->opaque);
> +    }
> +
> +    QEMU_LOCK_GUARD(&pool->unfinished_el_ctr_mutex);
> +
> +    assert(pool->unfinished_el_ctr > 0);
> +    pool->unfinished_el_ctr--;
> +
> +    if (pool->unfinished_el_ctr == 0) {
> +        qemu_cond_signal(&pool->unfinished_el_ctr_zero_cond);
> +    }
> +}
> +
> +ThreadPool *thread_pool_new(void)
> +{
> +    ThreadPool *pool = g_new(ThreadPool, 1);
> +
> +    pool->unfinished_el_ctr = 0;
> +    qemu_mutex_init(&pool->unfinished_el_ctr_mutex);
> +    qemu_cond_init(&pool->unfinished_el_ctr_zero_cond);
> +
> +    pool->t = g_thread_pool_new(thread_pool_func, pool, 0, TRUE, NULL);
> +    /*
> +     * g_thread_pool_new() can only return errors if initial thread(s)
> +     * creation fails but we ask for 0 initial threads above.
> +     */
> +    assert(pool->t);
> +
> +    return pool;
> +}
> +
> +void thread_pool_free(ThreadPool *pool)
> +{
> +    g_thread_pool_free(pool->t, FALSE, TRUE);

Should we make it an error to call thread_poll_free without first
calling thread_poll_wait? I worry the current usage will lead to having
two different ways of waiting with one of them (this one) being quite
implicit.

> +
> +    qemu_cond_destroy(&pool->unfinished_el_ctr_zero_cond);
> +    qemu_mutex_destroy(&pool->unfinished_el_ctr_mutex);
> +
> +    g_free(pool);
> +}
> +
> +void thread_pool_submit(ThreadPool *pool, ThreadPoolFunc *func,
> +                        void *opaque, GDestroyNotify opaque_destroy)
> +{
> +    ThreadPoolElement *el = g_new(ThreadPoolElement, 1);
> +
> +    el->func = func;
> +    el->opaque = opaque;
> +    el->opaque_destroy = opaque_destroy;
> +
> +    WITH_QEMU_LOCK_GUARD(&pool->unfinished_el_ctr_mutex) {
> +        pool->unfinished_el_ctr++;
> +    }
> +
> +    /*
> +     * Ignore the return value since this function can only return errors
> +     * if creation of an additional thread fails but even in this case the
> +     * provided work is still getting queued (just for the existing threads).
> +     */
> +    g_thread_pool_push(pool->t, el, NULL);
> +}
> +
> +void thread_pool_wait(ThreadPool *pool)
> +{
> +    QEMU_LOCK_GUARD(&pool->unfinished_el_ctr_mutex);
> +
> +    if (pool->unfinished_el_ctr > 0) {
> +        qemu_cond_wait(&pool->unfinished_el_ctr_zero_cond,
> +                       &pool->unfinished_el_ctr_mutex);
> +        assert(pool->unfinished_el_ctr == 0);
> +    }
> +}
> +
> +bool thread_pool_set_max_threads(ThreadPool *pool,
> +                                 int max_threads)
> +{
> +    assert(max_threads > 0);
> +
> +    return g_thread_pool_set_max_threads(pool->t, max_threads, NULL);
> +}
> +
> +bool thread_pool_adjust_max_threads_to_work(ThreadPool *pool)
> +{
> +    QEMU_LOCK_GUARD(&pool->unfinished_el_ctr_mutex);
> +
> +    return thread_pool_set_max_threads(pool, pool->unfinished_el_ctr);
> +}