public inbox for linux-block@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@gmail.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop: add WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flag to per device workqueue
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 06:52:14 -1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yjn+vpHZzvxiAUaK@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2ce1e26c-9050-9a4d-03b1-fb6ad57a5ccf@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>

Hello,

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 09:09:53AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > The legacy flushing warning is telling us that those workqueues can be
> 
> s/can be/must be/ ?

Well, one thing that we can but don't want to do is converting all
create_workqueue() users to alloc_workqueue() with MEM_RECLAIM, which is
wasteful but won't break anything. We know for sure that the workqueues
which trigger the legacy warning are participating in memory reclaim and
thus need MEM_RECLAIM. So, yeah, the warning tells us that they need
MEM_RECLAIM and should be converted.

> ? Current /* internal: create*_workqueue() */ tells me nothing.

It's trying to say that it shouldn't be used outside workqueue proper and
the warning message is supposed to trigger the conversion. But, yeah, a
stronger comment can help.

> My question is: I want to add WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flag to the WQ used by loop module
> because this WQ is involved upon writeback operation. But unless I add both
> __WQ_LEGACY | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flags to the WQ used by loop module, we will hit
> 
> 	WARN_ONCE(worker && ((worker->current_pwq->wq->flags &
> 			      (WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | __WQ_LEGACY)) == WQ_MEM_RECLAIM),
> 
> warning because e.g. xfs-sync WQ used by xfs module is not using WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flag.
> 
> 	mp->m_sync_workqueue = alloc_workqueue("xfs-sync/%s",
> 				XFS_WQFLAGS(WQ_FREEZABLE), 0, mp->m_super->s_id);
> 
> You are suggesting that the correct approach is to add WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flag to WQs
> used by filesystems when adding WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flag to the WQ used by loop module
> introduces possibility of hitting
> 
> 	WARN_ONCE(worker && ((worker->current_pwq->wq->flags &
> 			      (WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | __WQ_LEGACY)) == WQ_MEM_RECLAIM),
> 
> warning (instead of either adding __WQ_LEGACY | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flags to the WQ used
> by loop module or giving up WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flag for the WQ used by loop module),
> correct?

Yeah, you detected multiple issues at the same time. xfs sync is
participating in memory reclaim but doesn't have MEM_RECLAIM and loop is
marked with LEGACY but flushing other workqueues which are MEM_RECLIAM. So,
both xfs and loop workqueues need to be explicitly marked with MEM_RECLAIM.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

  reply	other threads:[~2022-03-22 16:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-03-17 14:08 [PATCH] loop: add WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flag to per device workqueue Tetsuo Handa
2022-03-17 14:38 ` Dan Schatzberg
2022-03-18 12:05   ` Tetsuo Handa
2022-03-18 17:15     ` Tejun Heo
2022-03-19  2:02       ` Tetsuo Handa
2022-03-21 16:55         ` Tejun Heo
2022-03-21 22:53           ` Tetsuo Handa
2022-03-21 23:04             ` Tejun Heo
2022-03-21 23:17               ` Tetsuo Handa
2022-03-21 23:27                 ` Tejun Heo
2022-03-22  0:09                   ` Tetsuo Handa
2022-03-22 16:52                     ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2022-03-22 22:00                       ` Dave Chinner
2022-03-22 22:02                         ` Tejun Heo
2022-03-22 22:05                           ` Tetsuo Handa
2022-03-22 22:19                             ` Tejun Heo
2022-03-22 22:59                               ` Dave Chinner
2022-03-22 23:32                                 ` Tetsuo Handa
2022-03-22 23:50                                   ` Dave Chinner
2022-03-23  0:09                                 ` Tejun Heo

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=Yjn+vpHZzvxiAUaK@slm.duckdns.org \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=schatzberg.dan@gmail.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox