From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: rcu@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@suse.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2 4/5] rcu: replace use of system_wq with system_percpu_wq
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 03:17:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250918101752.2592512-4-paulmck@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3773a6e3-8ec8-48c5-9277-264cd8ccbb10@paulmck-laptop>
From: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@suse.com>
Currently if a user enqueue a work item using schedule_delayed_work() the
used wq is "system_wq" (per-cpu wq) while queue_delayed_work() use
WORK_CPU_UNBOUND (used when a cpu is not specified). The same applies to
schedule_work() that is using system_wq and queue_work(), that makes use
again of WORK_CPU_UNBOUND.
This lack of consistentcy cannot be addressed without refactoring the API.
system_wq is a per-CPU worqueue, yet nothing in its name tells about that
CPU affinity constraint, which is very often not required by users. Make
it clear by adding a system_percpu_wq.
queue_work() / queue_delayed_work() mod_delayed_work() will now use the
new per-cpu wq: whether the user still stick on the old name a warn will
be printed along a wq redirect to the new one.
This patch add the new system_percpu_wq except for mm, fs and net
subsystem, whom are handled in separated patches.
The old wq will be kept for a few release cylces.
Suggested-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
---
kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
index f92443561d365a..2dc044fd126eb0 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
@@ -553,13 +553,13 @@ static void rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs(struct rcu_tasks *rtp, struct rcu_tasks_percpu
rtpcp_next = rtp->rtpcp_array[index];
if (rtpcp_next->cpu < smp_load_acquire(&rtp->percpu_dequeue_lim)) {
cpuwq = rcu_cpu_beenfullyonline(rtpcp_next->cpu) ? rtpcp_next->cpu : WORK_CPU_UNBOUND;
- queue_work_on(cpuwq, system_wq, &rtpcp_next->rtp_work);
+ queue_work_on(cpuwq, system_percpu_wq, &rtpcp_next->rtp_work);
index++;
if (index < num_possible_cpus()) {
rtpcp_next = rtp->rtpcp_array[index];
if (rtpcp_next->cpu < smp_load_acquire(&rtp->percpu_dequeue_lim)) {
cpuwq = rcu_cpu_beenfullyonline(rtpcp_next->cpu) ? rtpcp_next->cpu : WORK_CPU_UNBOUND;
- queue_work_on(cpuwq, system_wq, &rtpcp_next->rtp_work);
+ queue_work_on(cpuwq, system_percpu_wq, &rtpcp_next->rtp_work);
}
}
}
--
2.40.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-18 10:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-16 0:01 [PATCH 0/3] Miscellaneous RCU updates for v6.18 Paul E. McKenney
2025-08-16 0:01 ` [PATCH 1/3] rcu: Document that rcu_barrier() hurries lazy callbacks Paul E. McKenney
2025-08-16 0:01 ` [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Remove local_irq_save/restore() in rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler() Paul E. McKenney
2025-08-16 0:01 ` [PATCH 3/3] rculist: move list_for_each_rcu() to where it belongs Paul E. McKenney
2025-09-18 10:17 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] Miscellaneous RCU updates for v6.18 Paul E. McKenney
2025-09-18 10:17 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] rcu: Document that rcu_barrier() hurries lazy callbacks Paul E. McKenney
2025-09-18 10:17 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] rcu: Remove local_irq_save/restore() in rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler() Paul E. McKenney
2025-09-18 10:17 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] rculist: move list_for_each_rcu() to where it belongs Paul E. McKenney
2025-09-18 10:17 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2025-09-18 10:17 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] rcu: WQ_PERCPU added to alloc_workqueue users Paul E. McKenney
2025-09-19 13:32 ` Frederic Weisbecker
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=20250918101752.2592512-4-paulmck@kernel.org \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marco.crivellari@suse.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.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