Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@codeaurora.org>]

On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 20:46 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 06/16/2010 08:22 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > There's so many different ways that threads can interact .. Can you
> > imagine a thread waiting in userspace for something to complete in the
> > kernel, that does actually happen pretty often ;) .
> > 
> > I was just now randomly trolling through drivers and found this one,
> > drivers/spi/amba-pl022.c ..
> > 
> > It processes some data in the interrupt, but sometimes it offloads the
> > processing to a workqueue from the interrupt (or tasklet) .. If for
> > example I'm a userspace thread waiting for that data then I would have
> > to wait for that workqueue to complete (and it's priority plays a major
> > roll in when it completes).
> 
> Yeah, and it would wait that by flushing the work, right?  If the
> waiting part is using completion or some other event notification,
> you'll just need to update the driver so that the kernel can determine
> who's waiting for what so that it can bump the waited one's priority.
> Otherwise, the problem can't be solved.

This has nothing to do with flushing .. You keep bringing this back into
the kernel for some reason, we're talking about entirely userspace
threads ..

> >> It was about using wq for cpu intensive / RT stuff.  Linus said,
> >>
> >>   So stop arguing about irrelevancies. Nobody uses workqueues for RT
> >>   or for CPU-intensive crap. It's not what they were designed for, or
> >>   used for.
> > 
> > Which is not relevant to this discussion .. We're talking about
> > re-prioritizing the workqueue threads. We're _not_ talking about
> > workqueues designed specifically for real time purposes.
> 
> Well, it's somewhat related,
> 
> * Don't depend on works or workqueues for RT stuff.  It's not designed
>   for that.

Too bad .. We have a posix OS, and posix has RT priorities .. You can't
control what priorities user give those threads.

> * If you really wanna solve the problem, please go ahead and _solve_
>   it yourself.  (read the rest of the mail)

Your causing the problem, why should I solve it? My solution would just
be to NAK your patches.

> >> * fragile as hell
> > 
> > Changing the thread priorities shouldn't be fragile , if it is right now
> > then the threads are broken .. Can you exaplin in which cases you've
> > seen it being fragile?
> 
> Because the workqueue might just go away in the next release or other
> unrelated work which shouldn't get high priority might be scheduled
> there.  Maybe the name of the workqueue changes or it gets merged with
> another workqueue.  Maybe it gets split.  Maybe the system suspends
> and resumes and nobody knows that workers die and are created again
> over those events.  Maybe the backend implementaiton changes so that
> workers are pooled.

Changing the priorities is not fragile, your saying that ones ability to
adapt to changes in the kernel makes it hard to know what the workqueue
is actually doing.. Ok, that's fair.. This doesn't make it less useful
since people can discover thread dependencies without looking at the
kernel source.

> >> * depends heavily on unrelated implementation details
> > 
> > I have no idea what this means.
> 
> (continued) because all those are implementation details which are NOT
> PART OF THE INTERFACE in any way.

yet they are part of the interface like it or not. How could you use
threads and think thread priorities are not part of the interface.

In your new system how do you currently prevent thread priorities on
your new workqueue threads from getting modified? Surely you must be
doing that since you don't want those priorities to change right?

> >> * has extremely limited test coverage
> > 
> > Simple, just write tests.
> 
> Yeah, and test your few configurations with those,
> 
> >> * doesn't help progressing mainline at all
> > 
> > progressing where?
> 
> (continued) and other people experiencing the same problem will have
> to do about the same thing and won't know whether there nice + pidof
> will work with the next kernel upgrade.
> 
> Gee, I don't know.  These are pretty evident problems to me.  Aren't
> they obvious?

Your just looking at the problem through your specific use case glasses
without imagining what else people could be doing with the kernel.

How often do you think workqueues change names anyway? It's not all that
often.

> >> That's exactly like grepping /proc/kallsyms to determine some feature
> >> and claiming it's a feature whether the kernel intends it or not.
> >> Sure, use it all you want.  Just don't expect it to be there on the
> >> next release.
> > 
> > Your assume there's no value in changing the priorities which is wrong.
> > Your assuming way to much . Changing the priorities is useful.
> 
> And you're assuming grepping /proc/kallsyms is not useful?  It's
> useful in its adhoc unsupported hacky way.

Well lets say it's useful and 100k people use that method in it's
"hacky" way .. When does it become a feature then?

> >> You're basically saying that "I don't know how those inheritance
> >> inversions are happening but if I turn these magic knobs they seem to
> >> go away so I want those magic knobs".  Maybe the RT part of the code
> >> shouldn't be depending on that many random things to begin with?  And
> >> if there are actually things which are necessary, it's better idea to
> >> solve it properly through identifying problem points and properly
> >> inheriting priority instead of turning knobs until it somehow works?
> > 
> > I think your mis-interpreting me .. If I write a thread (in userspace)
> > which I put into RT priorities I don't have a lot of control over what
> > dependencies the kernel may put on my thread. Think from a users
> > perspective not from a kernel developers perspective.
> >
> > I'm not saying changing a workqueue priority would be a final solution,
> > but it is a way to prioritize things immediately and has worked in prior
> > kernels up till your patches.
> 
> * Make the kernel or driver or whatever you use in the RT path track
>   priority is the right thing to do.

That's why your changing the priority of the workqueue.

> * I'm very sorry I'm breaking your hacky workaround but seriously
>   that's another problem to solve.  Let's talk about the problem
>   itself instead of your hacky workaround.  (I think for most cases
>   not using workqueue in RT path would be the right thing to do.)

You have no control over using workqueue in an RT path, like I said you
can't control which applications might get RT priorities and what
workqueues they could be using..

Bottom line is you have to assume any kernel path way could have an RT
thread using it. You can't say "This is RT safe this kernel version, and
this other stuff it's not RT safe.." This is posix, everything can and
will get used by RT threads.

> >> If you wanna work on such things, be my guest.  I'll be happy to work
> >> with you but please stop talking about setting priorities of
> >> workqueues from userland.  That's just nuts.
> > 
> > You just don't understand it.. How can you expect your patches to go
> > into mainline with this attitude toward usages you just don't
> > understand?
> 
> I'll keep your doubts on mind but I'm really understanding what you're
> saying.  You just don't understand that I understand and disagree. :-)

So your totally unwilling to change your patches to correct this
problem? Is that what your getting at? Agree or disagree isn't relevant
it's a real problem or I wouldn't have brought it up.

btw, I already gave you a relatively easy way to correct this.

Daniel