Re: [PATCH-cgroup 1/4] workqueue: Add workqueue_unbound_exclude_cpumask() to exclude CPUs from wq_unbound_cpumask

[Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>]

On 10/18/23 09:41, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 10/18/23 05:24, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 02:11:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> When the "isolcpus" boot command line option is used to add a set
>>> of isolated CPUs, those CPUs will be excluded automatically from
>>> wq_unbound_cpumask to avoid running work functions from unbound
>>> workqueues.
>>>
>>> Recently cpuset has been extended to allow the creation of partitions
>>> of isolated CPUs dynamically. To make it closer to the "isolcpus"
>>> in functionality, the CPUs in those isolated cpuset partitions 
>>> should be
>>> excluded from wq_unbound_cpumask as well. This can be done currently by
>>> explicitly writing to the workqueue's cpumask sysfs file after creating
>>> the isolated partitions. However, this process can be error prone.
>>> Ideally, the cpuset code should be allowed to request the workqueue 
>>> code
>>> to exclude those isolated CPUs from wq_unbound_cpumask so that this
>>> operation can be done automatically and the isolated CPUs will be 
>>> returned
>>> back to wq_unbound_cpumask after the destructions of the isolated
>>> cpuset partitions.
>>>
>>> This patch adds a new workqueue_unbound_exclude_cpumask() to enable
>>> that. This new function will exclude the specified isolated CPUs
>>> from wq_unbound_cpumask. To be able to restore those isolated CPUs
>>> back after the destruction of isolated cpuset partitions, a new
>>> wq_user_unbound_cpumask is added to store the user provided unbound
>>> cpumask either from the boot command line options or from writing to
>>> the cpumask sysfs file. This new cpumask provides the basis for CPU
>>> exclusion.
>> The behaviors around wq_unbound_cpumask is getting pretty inconsistent:
>>
>> 1. Housekeeping excludes isolated CPUs on boot but allows user to 
>> override
>>     it to include isolated CPUs afterwards.
>>
>> 2. If an unbound wq's cpumask doesn't have any intersection with
>>     wq_unbound_cpumask we ignore the per-wq cpumask and falls back to
>>     wq_unbound_cpumask.
>>
>> 3. You're adding a masking layer on top with exclude which fails to 
>> set if
>>     the intersection is empty.
>>
>> Can we do the followings for consistency?
>>
>> 1. User's requested_unbound_cpumask is stored separately (as in this 
>> patch).
>>
>> 2. The effect wq_unbound_cpumask is determined by 
>> requested_unbound_cpumask
>>     & housekeeping_cpumask & cpuset_allowed_cpumask. The operation order
>>     matters. When an & operation yields an cpumask, the cpumask from the
>>     previous step is the effective one.
> Sure. I will do that.

I have a second thought after taking a further look at that. First of 
all, cpuset_allowed_mask isn't relevant here and the mask can certainly 
contain offline CPUs. So cpu_possible_mask is the proper fallback.

With the current patch, wq_user_unbound_cpumask is set up initially as  
(HK_TYPE_WQ ∩ HK_TYPE_DOMAIN) house keeping mask and rewritten by any 
subsequent write to workqueue/cpumask sysfs file. So using 
wq_user_unbound_cpumask has the implied precedence of user-sysfs written 
mask, command line isolcpus or nohz_full option mask and 
cpu_possible_mask. I think just fall back to wq_user_unbound_cpumask if 
the operation fails should be enough.

Cheers,
Longman