From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@meta.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@suse.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] rcu: WQ_PERCPU added to alloc_workqueue users
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:32:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aM1baMg5MDOQ37lp@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250918101752.2592512-5-paulmck@kernel.org>
Le Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 03:17:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> 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.
>
> alloc_workqueue() treats all queues as per-CPU by default, while unbound
> workqueues must opt-in via WQ_UNBOUND.
>
> This default is suboptimal: most workloads benefit from unbound queues,
> allowing the scheduler to place worker threads where they’re needed and
> reducing noise when CPUs are isolated.
>
> This default is suboptimal: most workloads benefit from unbound queues,
> allowing the scheduler to place worker threads where they’re needed and
> reducing noise when CPUs are isolated.
>
> This patch adds a new WQ_PERCPU flag to explicitly request the use of
> the per-CPU behavior. Both flags coexist for one release cycle to allow
> callers to transition their calls.
>
> Once migration is complete, WQ_UNBOUND can be removed and unbound will
> become the implicit default.
>
> With the introduction of the WQ_PERCPU flag (equivalent to !WQ_UNBOUND),
> any alloc_workqueue() caller that doesn’t explicitly specify WQ_UNBOUND
> must now use WQ_PERCPU.
>
> All existing users have been updated accordingly.
>
> 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/tree.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 1291e0761d70ab..c51c4a0af6aa5e 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -4890,10 +4890,10 @@ void __init rcu_init(void)
> rcutree_online_cpu(cpu);
>
> /* Create workqueue for Tree SRCU and for expedited GPs. */
> - rcu_gp_wq = alloc_workqueue("rcu_gp", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
> + rcu_gp_wq = alloc_workqueue("rcu_gp", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_PERCPU, 0);
> WARN_ON(!rcu_gp_wq);
>
> - sync_wq = alloc_workqueue("sync_wq", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
> + sync_wq = alloc_workqueue("sync_wq", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_PERCPU, 0);
> WARN_ON(!sync_wq);
sync_wq could be unbound as it's not dealing with per-cpu data.
Thanks.
>
> /* Respect if explicitly disabled via a boot parameter. */
> --
> 2.40.1
>
>
--
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-19 13:32 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 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] rcu: replace use of system_wq with system_percpu_wq Paul E. McKenney
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 [this message]
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=aM1baMg5MDOQ37lp@localhost.localdomain \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marco.crivellari@suse.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).