From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4/9] workqueue: use mutex for global_cwq manager exclusion
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:12:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1342545149-3515-5-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1342545149-3515-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS is used to ensure that at most one worker takes
the manager role at any given time on a given global_cwq. Trustee
later hitched on it to assume manager adding blocking wait for the
bit. As trustee already needed a custom wait mechanism, waiting for
MANAGING_WORKERS was rolled into the same mechanism.
Trustee is scheduled to be removed. This patch separates out
MANAGING_WORKERS wait into per-pool mutex. Workers use
mutex_trylock() to test for manager role and trustee uses mutex_lock()
to claim manager roles.
gcwq_claim/release_management() helpers are added to grab and release
manager roles of all pools on a global_cwq. gcwq_claim_management()
always grabs pool manager mutexes in ascending pool index order and
uses pool index as lockdep subclass.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
1 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index af51292..f7a0069 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@ enum {
/* pool flags */
POOL_MANAGE_WORKERS = 1 << 0, /* need to manage workers */
- POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS = 1 << 1, /* managing workers */
/* worker flags */
WORKER_STARTED = 1 << 0, /* started */
@@ -155,6 +154,7 @@ struct worker_pool {
struct timer_list idle_timer; /* L: worker idle timeout */
struct timer_list mayday_timer; /* L: SOS timer for workers */
+ struct mutex manager_mutex; /* mutex manager should hold */
struct ida worker_ida; /* L: for worker IDs */
struct worker *first_idle; /* L: first idle worker */
};
@@ -644,7 +644,7 @@ static bool need_to_manage_workers(struct worker_pool *pool)
/* Do we have too many workers and should some go away? */
static bool too_many_workers(struct worker_pool *pool)
{
- bool managing = pool->flags & POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS;
+ bool managing = mutex_is_locked(&pool->manager_mutex);
int nr_idle = pool->nr_idle + managing; /* manager is considered idle */
int nr_busy = pool->nr_workers - nr_idle;
@@ -1655,14 +1655,12 @@ static bool maybe_destroy_workers(struct worker_pool *pool)
static bool manage_workers(struct worker *worker)
{
struct worker_pool *pool = worker->pool;
- struct global_cwq *gcwq = pool->gcwq;
bool ret = false;
- if (pool->flags & POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS)
+ if (!mutex_trylock(&pool->manager_mutex))
return ret;
pool->flags &= ~POOL_MANAGE_WORKERS;
- pool->flags |= POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS;
/*
* Destroy and then create so that may_start_working() is true
@@ -1671,15 +1669,7 @@ static bool manage_workers(struct worker *worker)
ret |= maybe_destroy_workers(pool);
ret |= maybe_create_worker(pool);
- pool->flags &= ~POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS;
-
- /*
- * The trustee might be waiting to take over the manager
- * position, tell it we're done.
- */
- if (unlikely(gcwq->trustee))
- wake_up_all(&gcwq->trustee_wait);
-
+ mutex_unlock(&pool->manager_mutex);
return ret;
}
@@ -3255,6 +3245,24 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(work_busy);
* ----------------> RELEASE --------------
*/
+/* claim manager positions of all pools */
+static void gcwq_claim_management(struct global_cwq *gcwq)
+{
+ struct worker_pool *pool;
+
+ for_each_worker_pool(pool, gcwq)
+ mutex_lock_nested(&pool->manager_mutex, pool - gcwq->pools);
+}
+
+/* release manager positions */
+static void gcwq_release_management(struct global_cwq *gcwq)
+{
+ struct worker_pool *pool;
+
+ for_each_worker_pool(pool, gcwq)
+ mutex_unlock(&pool->manager_mutex);
+}
+
/**
* trustee_wait_event_timeout - timed event wait for trustee
* @cond: condition to wait for
@@ -3304,16 +3312,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(work_busy);
__ret1 < 0 ? -1 : 0; \
})
-static bool gcwq_is_managing_workers(struct global_cwq *gcwq)
-{
- struct worker_pool *pool;
-
- for_each_worker_pool(pool, gcwq)
- if (pool->flags & POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS)
- return true;
- return false;
-}
-
static bool gcwq_has_idle_workers(struct global_cwq *gcwq)
{
struct worker_pool *pool;
@@ -3336,15 +3334,8 @@ static int __cpuinit trustee_thread(void *__gcwq)
BUG_ON(gcwq->cpu != smp_processor_id());
+ gcwq_claim_management(gcwq);
spin_lock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
- /*
- * Claim the manager position and make all workers rogue.
- * Trustee must be bound to the target cpu and can't be
- * cancelled.
- */
- BUG_ON(gcwq->cpu != smp_processor_id());
- rc = trustee_wait_event(!gcwq_is_managing_workers(gcwq));
- BUG_ON(rc < 0);
/*
* We've claimed all manager positions. Make all workers unbound
@@ -3352,12 +3343,9 @@ static int __cpuinit trustee_thread(void *__gcwq)
* ones which are still executing works from before the last CPU
* down must be on the cpu. After this, they may become diasporas.
*/
- for_each_worker_pool(pool, gcwq) {
- pool->flags |= POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS;
-
+ for_each_worker_pool(pool, gcwq)
list_for_each_entry(worker, &pool->idle_list, entry)
worker->flags |= WORKER_UNBOUND;
- }
for_each_busy_worker(worker, i, pos, gcwq)
worker->flags |= WORKER_UNBOUND;
@@ -3497,9 +3485,7 @@ static int __cpuinit trustee_thread(void *__gcwq)
work_color_to_flags(WORK_NO_COLOR));
}
- /* relinquish manager role */
- for_each_worker_pool(pool, gcwq)
- pool->flags &= ~POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS;
+ gcwq_release_management(gcwq);
/* notify completion */
gcwq->trustee = NULL;
@@ -3894,6 +3880,7 @@ static int __init init_workqueues(void)
setup_timer(&pool->mayday_timer, gcwq_mayday_timeout,
(unsigned long)pool);
+ mutex_init(&pool->manager_mutex);
ida_init(&pool->worker_ida);
}
--
1.7.7.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-17 17:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-17 17:12 [PATCHSET] workqueue: reimplement CPU hotplug to keep idle workers Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 1/9] workqueue: perform cpu down operations from low priority cpu_notifier() Tejun Heo
2012-07-20 21:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-07-20 21:58 ` Tejun Heo
2012-07-21 21:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-07-22 16:43 ` [PATCH] workqueue: fix spurious CPU locality WARN from process_one_work() Tejun Heo
2012-07-22 21:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 2/9] workqueue: drop CPU_DYING notifier operation Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 3/9] workqueue: ROGUE workers are UNBOUND workers Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 17:12 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 5/9] workqueue: drop @bind from create_worker() Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 6/9] workqueue: reimplement CPU online rebinding to handle idle workers Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 7/9] workqueue: don't butcher idle workers on an offline CPU Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 8/9] workqueue: remove CPU offline trustee Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 9/9] workqueue: simplify CPU hotplug code Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 18:43 ` [PATCHSET] workqueue: reimplement CPU hotplug to keep idle workers Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-07-17 19:40 ` Tejun Heo
2012-07-20 15:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-20 17:02 ` Tejun Heo
2012-07-20 17:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-20 17:50 ` Tejun Heo
2012-07-20 18:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-20 18:34 ` Tejun Heo
2012-07-20 19:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-07-20 19:41 ` Tejun Heo
2012-07-21 6:42 ` Shilimkar, Santosh
2012-07-23 8:38 ` Peter De Schrijver
2012-07-20 16:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-20 16:52 ` Tejun Heo
2012-07-20 17:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-20 17:08 ` Tejun Heo
2012-07-20 17:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-20 17:43 ` 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=1342545149-3515-5-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox