Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 1 | ==================================== |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 2 | Concurrency Managed Workqueue (cmwq) |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 3 | ==================================== |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 4 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 5 | :Date: September, 2010 |
| 6 | :Author: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> |
| 7 | :Author: Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org> |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 8 | |
| 9 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 10 | Introduction |
| 11 | ============ |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 12 | |
| 13 | There are many cases where an asynchronous process execution context |
| 14 | is needed and the workqueue (wq) API is the most commonly used |
| 15 | mechanism for such cases. |
| 16 | |
| 17 | When such an asynchronous execution context is needed, a work item |
| 18 | describing which function to execute is put on a queue. An |
| 19 | independent thread serves as the asynchronous execution context. The |
| 20 | queue is called workqueue and the thread is called worker. |
| 21 | |
| 22 | While there are work items on the workqueue the worker executes the |
| 23 | functions associated with the work items one after the other. When |
| 24 | there is no work item left on the workqueue the worker becomes idle. |
| 25 | When a new work item gets queued, the worker begins executing again. |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 28 | Why cmwq? |
| 29 | ========= |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 30 | |
| 31 | In the original wq implementation, a multi threaded (MT) wq had one |
| 32 | worker thread per CPU and a single threaded (ST) wq had one worker |
| 33 | thread system-wide. A single MT wq needed to keep around the same |
| 34 | number of workers as the number of CPUs. The kernel grew a lot of MT |
| 35 | wq users over the years and with the number of CPU cores continuously |
| 36 | rising, some systems saturated the default 32k PID space just booting |
| 37 | up. |
| 38 | |
| 39 | Although MT wq wasted a lot of resource, the level of concurrency |
| 40 | provided was unsatisfactory. The limitation was common to both ST and |
| 41 | MT wq albeit less severe on MT. Each wq maintained its own separate |
| 42 | worker pool. A MT wq could provide only one execution context per CPU |
| 43 | while a ST wq one for the whole system. Work items had to compete for |
| 44 | those very limited execution contexts leading to various problems |
| 45 | including proneness to deadlocks around the single execution context. |
| 46 | |
| 47 | The tension between the provided level of concurrency and resource |
| 48 | usage also forced its users to make unnecessary tradeoffs like libata |
| 49 | choosing to use ST wq for polling PIOs and accepting an unnecessary |
| 50 | limitation that no two polling PIOs can progress at the same time. As |
| 51 | MT wq don't provide much better concurrency, users which require |
| 52 | higher level of concurrency, like async or fscache, had to implement |
| 53 | their own thread pool. |
| 54 | |
| 55 | Concurrency Managed Workqueue (cmwq) is a reimplementation of wq with |
| 56 | focus on the following goals. |
| 57 | |
| 58 | * Maintain compatibility with the original workqueue API. |
| 59 | |
| 60 | * Use per-CPU unified worker pools shared by all wq to provide |
| 61 | flexible level of concurrency on demand without wasting a lot of |
| 62 | resource. |
| 63 | |
| 64 | * Automatically regulate worker pool and level of concurrency so that |
| 65 | the API users don't need to worry about such details. |
| 66 | |
| 67 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 68 | The Design |
| 69 | ========== |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 70 | |
| 71 | In order to ease the asynchronous execution of functions a new |
| 72 | abstraction, the work item, is introduced. |
| 73 | |
| 74 | A work item is a simple struct that holds a pointer to the function |
| 75 | that is to be executed asynchronously. Whenever a driver or subsystem |
| 76 | wants a function to be executed asynchronously it has to set up a work |
| 77 | item pointing to that function and queue that work item on a |
| 78 | workqueue. |
| 79 | |
| 80 | Special purpose threads, called worker threads, execute the functions |
| 81 | off of the queue, one after the other. If no work is queued, the |
| 82 | worker threads become idle. These worker threads are managed in so |
Libin | 546d30c | 2013-08-21 08:50:41 +0800 | [diff] [blame] | 83 | called worker-pools. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 84 | |
| 85 | The cmwq design differentiates between the user-facing workqueues that |
| 86 | subsystems and drivers queue work items on and the backend mechanism |
Libin | 546d30c | 2013-08-21 08:50:41 +0800 | [diff] [blame] | 87 | which manages worker-pools and processes the queued work items. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 88 | |
Libin | 546d30c | 2013-08-21 08:50:41 +0800 | [diff] [blame] | 89 | There are two worker-pools, one for normal work items and the other |
| 90 | for high priority ones, for each possible CPU and some extra |
| 91 | worker-pools to serve work items queued on unbound workqueues - the |
| 92 | number of these backing pools is dynamic. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 93 | |
| 94 | Subsystems and drivers can create and queue work items through special |
| 95 | workqueue API functions as they see fit. They can influence some |
| 96 | aspects of the way the work items are executed by setting flags on the |
| 97 | workqueue they are putting the work item on. These flags include |
Tejun Heo | 1207637 | 2013-07-30 08:30:16 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 98 | things like CPU locality, concurrency limits, priority and more. To |
| 99 | get a detailed overview refer to the API description of |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 100 | ``alloc_workqueue()`` below. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 101 | |
Libin | 546d30c | 2013-08-21 08:50:41 +0800 | [diff] [blame] | 102 | When a work item is queued to a workqueue, the target worker-pool is |
| 103 | determined according to the queue parameters and workqueue attributes |
| 104 | and appended on the shared worklist of the worker-pool. For example, |
| 105 | unless specifically overridden, a work item of a bound workqueue will |
| 106 | be queued on the worklist of either normal or highpri worker-pool that |
| 107 | is associated to the CPU the issuer is running on. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 108 | |
| 109 | For any worker pool implementation, managing the concurrency level |
| 110 | (how many execution contexts are active) is an important issue. cmwq |
| 111 | tries to keep the concurrency at a minimal but sufficient level. |
| 112 | Minimal to save resources and sufficient in that the system is used at |
| 113 | its full capacity. |
| 114 | |
Libin | 546d30c | 2013-08-21 08:50:41 +0800 | [diff] [blame] | 115 | Each worker-pool bound to an actual CPU implements concurrency |
| 116 | management by hooking into the scheduler. The worker-pool is notified |
Tejun Heo | 3270476 | 2012-07-13 22:16:45 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 117 | whenever an active worker wakes up or sleeps and keeps track of the |
| 118 | number of the currently runnable workers. Generally, work items are |
| 119 | not expected to hog a CPU and consume many cycles. That means |
| 120 | maintaining just enough concurrency to prevent work processing from |
| 121 | stalling should be optimal. As long as there are one or more runnable |
Libin | 546d30c | 2013-08-21 08:50:41 +0800 | [diff] [blame] | 122 | workers on the CPU, the worker-pool doesn't start execution of a new |
Tejun Heo | 3270476 | 2012-07-13 22:16:45 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 123 | work, but, when the last running worker goes to sleep, it immediately |
| 124 | schedules a new worker so that the CPU doesn't sit idle while there |
| 125 | are pending work items. This allows using a minimal number of workers |
| 126 | without losing execution bandwidth. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 127 | |
| 128 | Keeping idle workers around doesn't cost other than the memory space |
| 129 | for kthreads, so cmwq holds onto idle ones for a while before killing |
| 130 | them. |
| 131 | |
Libin | 546d30c | 2013-08-21 08:50:41 +0800 | [diff] [blame] | 132 | For unbound workqueues, the number of backing pools is dynamic. |
| 133 | Unbound workqueue can be assigned custom attributes using |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 134 | ``apply_workqueue_attrs()`` and workqueue will automatically create |
Libin | 546d30c | 2013-08-21 08:50:41 +0800 | [diff] [blame] | 135 | backing worker pools matching the attributes. The responsibility of |
| 136 | regulating concurrency level is on the users. There is also a flag to |
| 137 | mark a bound wq to ignore the concurrency management. Please refer to |
| 138 | the API section for details. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 139 | |
| 140 | Forward progress guarantee relies on that workers can be created when |
| 141 | more execution contexts are necessary, which in turn is guaranteed |
| 142 | through the use of rescue workers. All work items which might be used |
| 143 | on code paths that handle memory reclaim are required to be queued on |
| 144 | wq's that have a rescue-worker reserved for execution under memory |
Libin | 546d30c | 2013-08-21 08:50:41 +0800 | [diff] [blame] | 145 | pressure. Else it is possible that the worker-pool deadlocks waiting |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 146 | for execution contexts to free up. |
| 147 | |
| 148 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 149 | Application Programming Interface (API) |
| 150 | ======================================= |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 151 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 152 | ``alloc_workqueue()`` allocates a wq. The original |
| 153 | ``create_*workqueue()`` functions are deprecated and scheduled for |
| 154 | removal. ``alloc_workqueue()`` takes three arguments - @``name``, |
| 155 | ``@flags`` and ``@max_active``. ``@name`` is the name of the wq and |
| 156 | also used as the name of the rescuer thread if there is one. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 157 | |
| 158 | A wq no longer manages execution resources but serves as a domain for |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 159 | forward progress guarantee, flush and work item attributes. ``@flags`` |
| 160 | and ``@max_active`` control how work items are assigned execution |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 161 | resources, scheduled and executed. |
| 162 | |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 163 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 164 | ``flags`` |
| 165 | --------- |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 166 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 167 | ``WQ_UNBOUND`` |
| 168 | Work items queued to an unbound wq are served by the special |
| 169 | worker-pools which host workers which are not bound to any |
| 170 | specific CPU. This makes the wq behave as a simple execution |
| 171 | context provider without concurrency management. The unbound |
| 172 | worker-pools try to start execution of work items as soon as |
| 173 | possible. Unbound wq sacrifices locality but is useful for |
| 174 | the following cases. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 175 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 176 | * Wide fluctuation in the concurrency level requirement is |
| 177 | expected and using bound wq may end up creating large number |
| 178 | of mostly unused workers across different CPUs as the issuer |
| 179 | hops through different CPUs. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 180 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 181 | * Long running CPU intensive workloads which can be better |
| 182 | managed by the system scheduler. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 183 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 184 | ``WQ_FREEZABLE`` |
| 185 | A freezable wq participates in the freeze phase of the system |
| 186 | suspend operations. Work items on the wq are drained and no |
| 187 | new work item starts execution until thawed. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 188 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 189 | ``WQ_MEM_RECLAIM`` |
| 190 | All wq which might be used in the memory reclaim paths **MUST** |
| 191 | have this flag set. The wq is guaranteed to have at least one |
| 192 | execution context regardless of memory pressure. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 193 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 194 | ``WQ_HIGHPRI`` |
| 195 | Work items of a highpri wq are queued to the highpri |
| 196 | worker-pool of the target cpu. Highpri worker-pools are |
| 197 | served by worker threads with elevated nice level. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 198 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 199 | Note that normal and highpri worker-pools don't interact with |
| 200 | each other. Each maintain its separate pool of workers and |
| 201 | implements concurrency management among its workers. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 202 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 203 | ``WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE`` |
| 204 | Work items of a CPU intensive wq do not contribute to the |
| 205 | concurrency level. In other words, runnable CPU intensive |
| 206 | work items will not prevent other work items in the same |
| 207 | worker-pool from starting execution. This is useful for bound |
| 208 | work items which are expected to hog CPU cycles so that their |
| 209 | execution is regulated by the system scheduler. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 210 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 211 | Although CPU intensive work items don't contribute to the |
| 212 | concurrency level, start of their executions is still |
| 213 | regulated by the concurrency management and runnable |
| 214 | non-CPU-intensive work items can delay execution of CPU |
| 215 | intensive work items. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 216 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 217 | This flag is meaningless for unbound wq. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 218 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 219 | Note that the flag ``WQ_NON_REENTRANT`` no longer exists as all |
| 220 | workqueues are now non-reentrant - any work item is guaranteed to be |
| 221 | executed by at most one worker system-wide at any given time. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 222 | |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 223 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 224 | ``max_active`` |
| 225 | -------------- |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 226 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 227 | ``@max_active`` determines the maximum number of execution contexts |
| 228 | per CPU which can be assigned to the work items of a wq. For example, |
| 229 | with ``@max_active`` of 16, at most 16 work items of the wq can be |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 230 | executing at the same time per CPU. |
| 231 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 232 | Currently, for a bound wq, the maximum limit for ``@max_active`` is |
| 233 | 512 and the default value used when 0 is specified is 256. For an |
| 234 | unbound wq, the limit is higher of 512 and 4 * |
| 235 | ``num_possible_cpus()``. These values are chosen sufficiently high |
| 236 | such that they are not the limiting factor while providing protection |
| 237 | in runaway cases. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 238 | |
| 239 | The number of active work items of a wq is usually regulated by the |
| 240 | users of the wq, more specifically, by how many work items the users |
| 241 | may queue at the same time. Unless there is a specific need for |
| 242 | throttling the number of active work items, specifying '0' is |
| 243 | recommended. |
| 244 | |
| 245 | Some users depend on the strict execution ordering of ST wq. The |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 246 | combination of ``@max_active`` of 1 and ``WQ_UNBOUND`` is used to |
| 247 | achieve this behavior. Work items on such wq are always queued to the |
| 248 | unbound worker-pools and only one work item can be active at any given |
| 249 | time thus achieving the same ordering property as ST wq. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 250 | |
| 251 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 252 | Example Execution Scenarios |
| 253 | =========================== |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 254 | |
| 255 | The following example execution scenarios try to illustrate how cmwq |
| 256 | behave under different configurations. |
| 257 | |
| 258 | Work items w0, w1, w2 are queued to a bound wq q0 on the same CPU. |
| 259 | w0 burns CPU for 5ms then sleeps for 10ms then burns CPU for 5ms |
| 260 | again before finishing. w1 and w2 burn CPU for 5ms then sleep for |
| 261 | 10ms. |
| 262 | |
| 263 | Ignoring all other tasks, works and processing overhead, and assuming |
| 264 | simple FIFO scheduling, the following is one highly simplified version |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 265 | of possible sequences of events with the original wq. :: |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 266 | |
| 267 | TIME IN MSECS EVENT |
| 268 | 0 w0 starts and burns CPU |
| 269 | 5 w0 sleeps |
| 270 | 15 w0 wakes up and burns CPU |
| 271 | 20 w0 finishes |
| 272 | 20 w1 starts and burns CPU |
| 273 | 25 w1 sleeps |
| 274 | 35 w1 wakes up and finishes |
| 275 | 35 w2 starts and burns CPU |
| 276 | 40 w2 sleeps |
| 277 | 50 w2 wakes up and finishes |
| 278 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 279 | And with cmwq with ``@max_active`` >= 3, :: |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 280 | |
| 281 | TIME IN MSECS EVENT |
| 282 | 0 w0 starts and burns CPU |
| 283 | 5 w0 sleeps |
| 284 | 5 w1 starts and burns CPU |
| 285 | 10 w1 sleeps |
| 286 | 10 w2 starts and burns CPU |
| 287 | 15 w2 sleeps |
| 288 | 15 w0 wakes up and burns CPU |
| 289 | 20 w0 finishes |
| 290 | 20 w1 wakes up and finishes |
| 291 | 25 w2 wakes up and finishes |
| 292 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 293 | If ``@max_active`` == 2, :: |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 294 | |
| 295 | TIME IN MSECS EVENT |
| 296 | 0 w0 starts and burns CPU |
| 297 | 5 w0 sleeps |
| 298 | 5 w1 starts and burns CPU |
| 299 | 10 w1 sleeps |
| 300 | 15 w0 wakes up and burns CPU |
| 301 | 20 w0 finishes |
| 302 | 20 w1 wakes up and finishes |
| 303 | 20 w2 starts and burns CPU |
| 304 | 25 w2 sleeps |
| 305 | 35 w2 wakes up and finishes |
| 306 | |
| 307 | Now, let's assume w1 and w2 are queued to a different wq q1 which has |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 308 | ``WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE`` set, :: |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 309 | |
| 310 | TIME IN MSECS EVENT |
| 311 | 0 w0 starts and burns CPU |
| 312 | 5 w0 sleeps |
| 313 | 5 w1 and w2 start and burn CPU |
| 314 | 10 w1 sleeps |
| 315 | 15 w2 sleeps |
| 316 | 15 w0 wakes up and burns CPU |
| 317 | 20 w0 finishes |
| 318 | 20 w1 wakes up and finishes |
| 319 | 25 w2 wakes up and finishes |
| 320 | |
| 321 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 322 | Guidelines |
| 323 | ========== |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 324 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 325 | * Do not forget to use ``WQ_MEM_RECLAIM`` if a wq may process work |
| 326 | items which are used during memory reclaim. Each wq with |
| 327 | ``WQ_MEM_RECLAIM`` set has an execution context reserved for it. If |
| 328 | there is dependency among multiple work items used during memory |
| 329 | reclaim, they should be queued to separate wq each with |
| 330 | ``WQ_MEM_RECLAIM``. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 331 | |
| 332 | * Unless strict ordering is required, there is no need to use ST wq. |
| 333 | |
| 334 | * Unless there is a specific need, using 0 for @max_active is |
| 335 | recommended. In most use cases, concurrency level usually stays |
| 336 | well under the default limit. |
| 337 | |
Tejun Heo | 6370a6a | 2010-10-11 15:12:27 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 338 | * A wq serves as a domain for forward progress guarantee |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 339 | (``WQ_MEM_RECLAIM``, flush and work item attributes. Work items |
| 340 | which are not involved in memory reclaim and don't need to be |
| 341 | flushed as a part of a group of work items, and don't require any |
| 342 | special attribute, can use one of the system wq. There is no |
| 343 | difference in execution characteristics between using a dedicated wq |
| 344 | and a system wq. |
Tejun Heo | c54fce6 | 2010-09-10 16:51:36 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 345 | |
| 346 | * Unless work items are expected to consume a huge amount of CPU |
| 347 | cycles, using a bound wq is usually beneficial due to the increased |
| 348 | level of locality in wq operations and work item execution. |
Florian Mickler | e2de9e0 | 2011-03-31 13:40:42 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 349 | |
| 350 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 351 | Debugging |
| 352 | ========= |
Florian Mickler | e2de9e0 | 2011-03-31 13:40:42 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 353 | |
| 354 | Because the work functions are executed by generic worker threads |
| 355 | there are a few tricks needed to shed some light on misbehaving |
| 356 | workqueue users. |
| 357 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 358 | Worker threads show up in the process list as: :: |
Florian Mickler | e2de9e0 | 2011-03-31 13:40:42 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 359 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 360 | root 5671 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S 12:07 0:00 [kworker/0:1] |
| 361 | root 5672 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S 12:07 0:00 [kworker/1:2] |
| 362 | root 5673 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S 12:12 0:00 [kworker/0:0] |
| 363 | root 5674 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S 12:13 0:00 [kworker/1:0] |
Florian Mickler | e2de9e0 | 2011-03-31 13:40:42 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 364 | |
| 365 | If kworkers are going crazy (using too much cpu), there are two types |
| 366 | of possible problems: |
| 367 | |
Chris Bainbridge | 6888c6f | 2015-05-05 12:49:00 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 368 | 1. Something being scheduled in rapid succession |
Florian Mickler | e2de9e0 | 2011-03-31 13:40:42 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 369 | 2. A single work item that consumes lots of cpu cycles |
| 370 | |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 371 | The first one can be tracked using tracing: :: |
Florian Mickler | e2de9e0 | 2011-03-31 13:40:42 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 372 | |
| 373 | $ echo workqueue:workqueue_queue_work > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/set_event |
| 374 | $ cat /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_pipe > out.txt |
| 375 | (wait a few secs) |
| 376 | ^C |
| 377 | |
| 378 | If something is busy looping on work queueing, it would be dominating |
| 379 | the output and the offender can be determined with the work item |
| 380 | function. |
| 381 | |
| 382 | For the second type of problems it should be possible to just check |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 383 | the stack trace of the offending worker thread. :: |
Florian Mickler | e2de9e0 | 2011-03-31 13:40:42 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 384 | |
| 385 | $ cat /proc/THE_OFFENDING_KWORKER/stack |
| 386 | |
| 387 | The work item's function should be trivially visible in the stack |
| 388 | trace. |
Silvio Fricke | e7f08ff | 2016-10-28 10:14:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 389 | |
| 390 | |
| 391 | Kernel Inline Documentations Reference |
| 392 | ====================================== |
| 393 | |
| 394 | .. kernel-doc:: include/linux/workqueue.h |