From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755307Ab2IRUtn (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:49:43 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:43229 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755083Ab2IRUtj (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:49:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:49:34 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>, Andreas Herrmann , Jiri Kosina , Bjorn Helgaas , Len Brown Subject: [PATCH 3.6-rc6 1/2] workqueue: reimplement work_on_cpu() using system_wq Message-ID: <20120918204934.GG8474@google.com> References: <20120917201721.GJ18677@google.com> <20120918201231.GF8474@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org The existing work_on_cpu() implementation is hugely inefficient. It creates a new kthread, execute that single function and then let the kthread die on each invocation. Now that system_wq can handle concurrent executions, there's no advantage of doing this. Reimplement work_on_cpu() using system_wq which makes it simpler and way more efficient. stable: While this isn't a fix in itself, it's needed to fix a workqueue related bug in cpufreq/powernow-k8. AFAICS, this shouldn't break other existing users. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jiri Kosina Cc: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Len Brown Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org --- So, here are the two patches which can be applied to 3.6-rc6. I'll post a combined patch to the bugzilla so that Duncan can test it. The only worrying thing is that this might affect the existing work_on_cpu() users in some crazy subtle way. I can't see how it would break anything but it's when I think like that when something bites me. That said, pci-driver is probably the most common use case and it seems to work fine here. Thanks. kernel/workqueue.c | 27 +++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) --- a/kernel/workqueue.c +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c @@ -3576,18 +3576,17 @@ static int __devinit workqueue_cpu_down_ #ifdef CONFIG_SMP struct work_for_cpu { - struct completion completion; + struct work_struct work; long (*fn)(void *); void *arg; long ret; }; -static int do_work_for_cpu(void *_wfc) +static void work_for_cpu_fn(struct work_struct *work) { - struct work_for_cpu *wfc = _wfc; + struct work_for_cpu *wfc = container_of(work, struct work_for_cpu, work); + wfc->ret = wfc->fn(wfc->arg); - complete(&wfc->completion); - return 0; } /** @@ -3602,19 +3601,11 @@ static int do_work_for_cpu(void *_wfc) */ long work_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg) { - struct task_struct *sub_thread; - struct work_for_cpu wfc = { - .completion = COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK(wfc.completion), - .fn = fn, - .arg = arg, - }; - - sub_thread = kthread_create(do_work_for_cpu, &wfc, "work_for_cpu"); - if (IS_ERR(sub_thread)) - return PTR_ERR(sub_thread); - kthread_bind(sub_thread, cpu); - wake_up_process(sub_thread); - wait_for_completion(&wfc.completion); + struct work_for_cpu wfc = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg }; + + INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&wfc.work, work_for_cpu_fn); + schedule_work_on(cpu, &wfc.work); + flush_work(&wfc.work); return wfc.ret; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(work_on_cpu);