| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Concurrency Managed Workqueue (cmwq) | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | September, 2010		Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 			Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org> | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | CONTENTS | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 1. Introduction | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 2. Why cmwq? | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 3. The Design | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 4. Application Programming Interface (API) | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 5. Example Execution Scenarios | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 6. Guidelines | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2011-03-31 13:40:42 +02:00
										 |  |  | 7. Debugging | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 1. Introduction | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | There are many cases where an asynchronous process execution context | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | is needed and the workqueue (wq) API is the most commonly used | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | mechanism for such cases. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | When such an asynchronous execution context is needed, a work item | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | describing which function to execute is put on a queue.  An | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | independent thread serves as the asynchronous execution context.  The | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | queue is called workqueue and the thread is called worker. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | While there are work items on the workqueue the worker executes the | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | functions associated with the work items one after the other.  When | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | there is no work item left on the workqueue the worker becomes idle. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | When a new work item gets queued, the worker begins executing again. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 2. Why cmwq? | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | In the original wq implementation, a multi threaded (MT) wq had one | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | worker thread per CPU and a single threaded (ST) wq had one worker | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | thread system-wide.  A single MT wq needed to keep around the same | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | number of workers as the number of CPUs.  The kernel grew a lot of MT | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | wq users over the years and with the number of CPU cores continuously | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | rising, some systems saturated the default 32k PID space just booting | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | up. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Although MT wq wasted a lot of resource, the level of concurrency | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | provided was unsatisfactory.  The limitation was common to both ST and | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | MT wq albeit less severe on MT.  Each wq maintained its own separate | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | worker pool.  A MT wq could provide only one execution context per CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | while a ST wq one for the whole system.  Work items had to compete for | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | those very limited execution contexts leading to various problems | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | including proneness to deadlocks around the single execution context. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | The tension between the provided level of concurrency and resource | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | usage also forced its users to make unnecessary tradeoffs like libata | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | choosing to use ST wq for polling PIOs and accepting an unnecessary | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | limitation that no two polling PIOs can progress at the same time.  As | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | MT wq don't provide much better concurrency, users which require | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | higher level of concurrency, like async or fscache, had to implement | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | their own thread pool. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Concurrency Managed Workqueue (cmwq) is a reimplementation of wq with | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | focus on the following goals. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | * Maintain compatibility with the original workqueue API. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | * Use per-CPU unified worker pools shared by all wq to provide | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   flexible level of concurrency on demand without wasting a lot of | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   resource. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | * Automatically regulate worker pool and level of concurrency so that | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   the API users don't need to worry about such details. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 3. The Design | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | In order to ease the asynchronous execution of functions a new | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | abstraction, the work item, is introduced. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | A work item is a simple struct that holds a pointer to the function | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | that is to be executed asynchronously.  Whenever a driver or subsystem | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | wants a function to be executed asynchronously it has to set up a work | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | item pointing to that function and queue that work item on a | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | workqueue. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Special purpose threads, called worker threads, execute the functions | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | off of the queue, one after the other.  If no work is queued, the | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | worker threads become idle.  These worker threads are managed in so | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2013-08-21 08:50:41 +08:00
										 |  |  | called worker-pools. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | The cmwq design differentiates between the user-facing workqueues that | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | subsystems and drivers queue work items on and the backend mechanism | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2013-08-21 08:50:41 +08:00
										 |  |  | which manages worker-pools and processes the queued work items. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2013-08-21 08:50:41 +08:00
										 |  |  | There are two worker-pools, one for normal work items and the other | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | for high priority ones, for each possible CPU and some extra | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | worker-pools to serve work items queued on unbound workqueues - the | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | number of these backing pools is dynamic. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Subsystems and drivers can create and queue work items through special | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | workqueue API functions as they see fit. They can influence some | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | aspects of the way the work items are executed by setting flags on the | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | workqueue they are putting the work item on. These flags include | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2013-07-30 08:30:16 -04:00
										 |  |  | things like CPU locality, concurrency limits, priority and more.  To | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | get a detailed overview refer to the API description of | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | alloc_workqueue() below. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2013-08-21 08:50:41 +08:00
										 |  |  | When a work item is queued to a workqueue, the target worker-pool is | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | determined according to the queue parameters and workqueue attributes | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | and appended on the shared worklist of the worker-pool.  For example, | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | unless specifically overridden, a work item of a bound workqueue will | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | be queued on the worklist of either normal or highpri worker-pool that | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | is associated to the CPU the issuer is running on. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | For any worker pool implementation, managing the concurrency level | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | (how many execution contexts are active) is an important issue.  cmwq | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | tries to keep the concurrency at a minimal but sufficient level. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Minimal to save resources and sufficient in that the system is used at | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | its full capacity. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2013-08-21 08:50:41 +08:00
										 |  |  | Each worker-pool bound to an actual CPU implements concurrency | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | management by hooking into the scheduler.  The worker-pool is notified | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2012-07-13 22:16:45 -07:00
										 |  |  | whenever an active worker wakes up or sleeps and keeps track of the | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | number of the currently runnable workers.  Generally, work items are | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | not expected to hog a CPU and consume many cycles.  That means | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | maintaining just enough concurrency to prevent work processing from | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | stalling should be optimal.  As long as there are one or more runnable | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2013-08-21 08:50:41 +08:00
										 |  |  | workers on the CPU, the worker-pool doesn't start execution of a new | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2012-07-13 22:16:45 -07:00
										 |  |  | work, but, when the last running worker goes to sleep, it immediately | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | schedules a new worker so that the CPU doesn't sit idle while there | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | are pending work items.  This allows using a minimal number of workers | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | without losing execution bandwidth. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Keeping idle workers around doesn't cost other than the memory space | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | for kthreads, so cmwq holds onto idle ones for a while before killing | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | them. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2013-08-21 08:50:41 +08:00
										 |  |  | For unbound workqueues, the number of backing pools is dynamic. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Unbound workqueue can be assigned custom attributes using | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | apply_workqueue_attrs() and workqueue will automatically create | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | backing worker pools matching the attributes.  The responsibility of | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | regulating concurrency level is on the users.  There is also a flag to | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | mark a bound wq to ignore the concurrency management.  Please refer to | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | the API section for details. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Forward progress guarantee relies on that workers can be created when | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | more execution contexts are necessary, which in turn is guaranteed | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | through the use of rescue workers.  All work items which might be used | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | on code paths that handle memory reclaim are required to be queued on | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | wq's that have a rescue-worker reserved for execution under memory | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2013-08-21 08:50:41 +08:00
										 |  |  | pressure.  Else it is possible that the worker-pool deadlocks waiting | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | for execution contexts to free up. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 4. Application Programming Interface (API) | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | alloc_workqueue() allocates a wq.  The original create_*workqueue() | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | functions are deprecated and scheduled for removal.  alloc_workqueue() | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | takes three arguments - @name, @flags and @max_active.  @name is the | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | name of the wq and also used as the name of the rescuer thread if | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | there is one. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | A wq no longer manages execution resources but serves as a domain for | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | forward progress guarantee, flush and work item attributes.  @flags | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | and @max_active control how work items are assigned execution | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | resources, scheduled and executed. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | @flags: | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   WQ_UNBOUND | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2013-08-21 08:50:41 +08:00
										 |  |  | 	Work items queued to an unbound wq are served by the special | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	woker-pools which host workers which are not bound to any | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	specific CPU.  This makes the wq behave as a simple execution | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	context provider without concurrency management.  The unbound | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	worker-pools try to start execution of work items as soon as | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	possible.  Unbound wq sacrifices locality but is useful for | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	the following cases. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	* Wide fluctuation in the concurrency level requirement is | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	  expected and using bound wq may end up creating large number | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	  of mostly unused workers across different CPUs as the issuer | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	  hops through different CPUs. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	* Long running CPU intensive workloads which can be better | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	  managed by the system scheduler. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2011-02-16 09:25:31 +01:00
										 |  |  |   WQ_FREEZABLE | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2011-02-16 09:25:31 +01:00
										 |  |  | 	A freezable wq participates in the freeze phase of the system | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 	suspend operations.  Work items on the wq are drained and no | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	new work item starts execution until thawed. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-10-11 15:12:27 +02:00
										 |  |  |   WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	All wq which might be used in the memory reclaim paths _MUST_ | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-10-11 15:12:27 +02:00
										 |  |  | 	have this flag set.  The wq is guaranteed to have at least one | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	execution context regardless of memory pressure. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   WQ_HIGHPRI | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2012-07-13 22:16:45 -07:00
										 |  |  | 	Work items of a highpri wq are queued to the highpri | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2013-08-21 08:50:41 +08:00
										 |  |  | 	worker-pool of the target cpu.  Highpri worker-pools are | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2012-07-13 22:16:45 -07:00
										 |  |  | 	served by worker threads with elevated nice level. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2013-08-21 08:50:41 +08:00
										 |  |  | 	Note that normal and highpri worker-pools don't interact with | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2012-07-13 22:16:45 -07:00
										 |  |  | 	each other.  Each maintain its separate pool of workers and | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	implements concurrency management among its workers. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	Work items of a CPU intensive wq do not contribute to the | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	concurrency level.  In other words, runnable CPU intensive | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2012-07-13 22:16:45 -07:00
										 |  |  | 	work items will not prevent other work items in the same | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2013-08-21 08:50:41 +08:00
										 |  |  | 	worker-pool from starting execution.  This is useful for bound | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2012-07-13 22:16:45 -07:00
										 |  |  | 	work items which are expected to hog CPU cycles so that their | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	execution is regulated by the system scheduler. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	Although CPU intensive work items don't contribute to the | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	concurrency level, start of their executions is still | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	regulated by the concurrency management and runnable | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	non-CPU-intensive work items can delay execution of CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	intensive work items. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	This flag is meaningless for unbound wq. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2013-07-30 08:30:16 -04:00
										 |  |  | Note that the flag WQ_NON_REENTRANT no longer exists as all workqueues | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | are now non-reentrant - any work item is guaranteed to be executed by | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | at most one worker system-wide at any given time. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | @max_active: | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | @max_active determines the maximum number of execution contexts per | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | CPU which can be assigned to the work items of a wq.  For example, | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | with @max_active of 16, at most 16 work items of the wq can be | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | executing at the same time per CPU. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Currently, for a bound wq, the maximum limit for @max_active is 512 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | and the default value used when 0 is specified is 256.  For an unbound | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | wq, the limit is higher of 512 and 4 * num_possible_cpus().  These | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | values are chosen sufficiently high such that they are not the | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | limiting factor while providing protection in runaway cases. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | The number of active work items of a wq is usually regulated by the | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | users of the wq, more specifically, by how many work items the users | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | may queue at the same time.  Unless there is a specific need for | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | throttling the number of active work items, specifying '0' is | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | recommended. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Some users depend on the strict execution ordering of ST wq.  The | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | combination of @max_active of 1 and WQ_UNBOUND is used to achieve this | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2013-08-21 08:50:41 +08:00
										 |  |  | behavior.  Work items on such wq are always queued to the unbound | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | worker-pools and only one work item can be active at any given time thus | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | achieving the same ordering property as ST wq. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 5. Example Execution Scenarios | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | The following example execution scenarios try to illustrate how cmwq | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | behave under different configurations. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  Work items w0, w1, w2 are queued to a bound wq q0 on the same CPU. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  w0 burns CPU for 5ms then sleeps for 10ms then burns CPU for 5ms | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  again before finishing.  w1 and w2 burn CPU for 5ms then sleep for | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  10ms. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Ignoring all other tasks, works and processing overhead, and assuming | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | simple FIFO scheduling, the following is one highly simplified version | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | of possible sequences of events with the original wq. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  TIME IN MSECS	EVENT | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  0		w0 starts and burns CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  5		w0 sleeps | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  15		w0 wakes up and burns CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  20		w0 finishes | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  20		w1 starts and burns CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  25		w1 sleeps | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  35		w1 wakes up and finishes | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  35		w2 starts and burns CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  40		w2 sleeps | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  50		w2 wakes up and finishes | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | And with cmwq with @max_active >= 3, | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  TIME IN MSECS	EVENT | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  0		w0 starts and burns CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  5		w0 sleeps | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  5		w1 starts and burns CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  10		w1 sleeps | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  10		w2 starts and burns CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  15		w2 sleeps | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  15		w0 wakes up and burns CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  20		w0 finishes | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  20		w1 wakes up and finishes | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  25		w2 wakes up and finishes | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | If @max_active == 2, | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  TIME IN MSECS	EVENT | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  0		w0 starts and burns CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  5		w0 sleeps | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  5		w1 starts and burns CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  10		w1 sleeps | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  15		w0 wakes up and burns CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  20		w0 finishes | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  20		w1 wakes up and finishes | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  20		w2 starts and burns CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  25		w2 sleeps | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  35		w2 wakes up and finishes | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Now, let's assume w1 and w2 are queued to a different wq q1 which has | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2012-07-13 22:16:45 -07:00
										 |  |  | WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE set, | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  TIME IN MSECS	EVENT | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  0		w0 starts and burns CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  5		w0 sleeps | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  5		w1 and w2 start and burn CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  10		w1 sleeps | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  15		w2 sleeps | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  15		w0 wakes up and burns CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  20		w0 finishes | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  20		w1 wakes up and finishes | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |  25		w2 wakes up and finishes | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 6. Guidelines | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-10-11 15:12:27 +02:00
										 |  |  | * Do not forget to use WQ_MEM_RECLAIM if a wq may process work items | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   which are used during memory reclaim.  Each wq with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   set has an execution context reserved for it.  If there is | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   dependency among multiple work items used during memory reclaim, | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   they should be queued to separate wq each with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | * Unless strict ordering is required, there is no need to use ST wq. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | * Unless there is a specific need, using 0 for @max_active is | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   recommended.  In most use cases, concurrency level usually stays | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   well under the default limit. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-10-11 15:12:27 +02:00
										 |  |  | * A wq serves as a domain for forward progress guarantee | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   (WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, flush and work item attributes.  Work items which | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   are not involved in memory reclaim and don't need to be flushed as a | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   part of a group of work items, and don't require any special | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   attribute, can use one of the system wq.  There is no difference in | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   execution characteristics between using a dedicated wq and a system | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   wq. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2010-09-10 16:51:36 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | * Unless work items are expected to consume a huge amount of CPU | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   cycles, using a bound wq is usually beneficial due to the increased | 
					
						
							|  |  |  |   level of locality in wq operations and work item execution. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2011-03-31 13:40:42 +02:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 7. Debugging | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Because the work functions are executed by generic worker threads | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | there are a few tricks needed to shed some light on misbehaving | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | workqueue users. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | Worker threads show up in the process list as: | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | root      5671  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        S    12:07   0:00 [kworker/0:1] | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | root      5672  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        S    12:07   0:00 [kworker/1:2] | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | root      5673  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        S    12:12   0:00 [kworker/0:0] | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | root      5674  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        S    12:13   0:00 [kworker/1:0] | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | If kworkers are going crazy (using too much cpu), there are two types | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | of possible problems: | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	1. Something beeing scheduled in rapid succession | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	2. A single work item that consumes lots of cpu cycles | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | The first one can be tracked using tracing: | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	$ echo workqueue:workqueue_queue_work > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/set_event | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	$ cat /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_pipe > out.txt | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	(wait a few secs) | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	^C | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | If something is busy looping on work queueing, it would be dominating | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | the output and the offender can be determined with the work item | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | function. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | For the second type of problems it should be possible to just check | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | the stack trace of the offending worker thread. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	$ cat /proc/THE_OFFENDING_KWORKER/stack | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | The work item's function should be trivially visible in the stack | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | trace. |