All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@meta.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@suse.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] rcu: WQ_PERCPU added to alloc_workqueue users
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:32:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aM1baMg5MDOQ37lp@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250918101752.2592512-5-paulmck@kernel.org>

Le Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 03:17:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> From: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@suse.com>
> 
> Currently if a user enqueue a work item using schedule_delayed_work() the
> used wq is "system_wq" (per-cpu wq) while queue_delayed_work() use
> WORK_CPU_UNBOUND (used when a cpu is not specified). The same applies to
> schedule_work() that is using system_wq and queue_work(), that makes use
> again of WORK_CPU_UNBOUND.
> This lack of consistentcy cannot be addressed without refactoring the API.
> 
> alloc_workqueue() treats all queues as per-CPU by default, while unbound
> workqueues must opt-in via WQ_UNBOUND.
> 
> This default is suboptimal: most workloads benefit from unbound queues,
> allowing the scheduler to place worker threads where they’re needed and
> reducing noise when CPUs are isolated.
> 
> This default is suboptimal: most workloads benefit from unbound queues,
> allowing the scheduler to place worker threads where they’re needed and
> reducing noise when CPUs are isolated.
> 
> This patch adds a new WQ_PERCPU flag to explicitly request the use of
> the per-CPU behavior. Both flags coexist for one release cycle to allow
> callers to transition their calls.
> 
> Once migration is complete, WQ_UNBOUND can be removed and unbound will
> become the implicit default.
> 
> With the introduction of the WQ_PERCPU flag (equivalent to !WQ_UNBOUND),
> any alloc_workqueue() caller that doesn’t explicitly specify WQ_UNBOUND
> must now use WQ_PERCPU.
> 
> All existing users have been updated accordingly.
> 
> Suggested-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@suse.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> ---
>  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 1291e0761d70ab..c51c4a0af6aa5e 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -4890,10 +4890,10 @@ void __init rcu_init(void)
>  	rcutree_online_cpu(cpu);
>  
>  	/* Create workqueue for Tree SRCU and for expedited GPs. */
> -	rcu_gp_wq = alloc_workqueue("rcu_gp", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
> +	rcu_gp_wq = alloc_workqueue("rcu_gp", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_PERCPU, 0);
>  	WARN_ON(!rcu_gp_wq);
>  
> -	sync_wq = alloc_workqueue("sync_wq", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
> +	sync_wq = alloc_workqueue("sync_wq", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_PERCPU, 0);
>  	WARN_ON(!sync_wq);

sync_wq could be unbound as it's not dealing with per-cpu data.

Thanks.

>  
>  	/* Respect if explicitly disabled via a boot parameter. */
> -- 
> 2.40.1
> 
> 

-- 
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs

      reply	other threads:[~2025-09-19 13:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-08-16  0:01 [PATCH 0/3] Miscellaneous RCU updates for v6.18 Paul E. McKenney
2025-08-16  0:01 ` [PATCH 1/3] rcu: Document that rcu_barrier() hurries lazy callbacks Paul E. McKenney
2025-08-16  0:01 ` [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Remove local_irq_save/restore() in rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler() Paul E. McKenney
2025-08-16  0:01 ` [PATCH 3/3] rculist: move list_for_each_rcu() to where it belongs Paul E. McKenney
2025-09-18 10:17 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] Miscellaneous RCU updates for v6.18 Paul E. McKenney
2025-09-18 10:17   ` [PATCH v2 1/5] rcu: Document that rcu_barrier() hurries lazy callbacks Paul E. McKenney
2025-09-18 10:17   ` [PATCH v2 2/5] rcu: Remove local_irq_save/restore() in rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler() Paul E. McKenney
2025-09-18 10:17   ` [PATCH v2 3/5] rculist: move list_for_each_rcu() to where it belongs Paul E. McKenney
2025-09-18 10:17   ` [PATCH v2 4/5] rcu: replace use of system_wq with system_percpu_wq Paul E. McKenney
2025-09-18 10:17   ` [PATCH v2 5/5] rcu: WQ_PERCPU added to alloc_workqueue users Paul E. McKenney
2025-09-19 13:32     ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]

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=aM1baMg5MDOQ37lp@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marco.crivellari@suse.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.