Commits · 1606283622689bdc460052b4a1281c36de13fe49 · Kirill Smelkov / linux

07 Feb, 2013 6 commits

workqueue: cosmetic update in try_to_grab_pending() · 16062836

Tejun Heo authored Feb 06, 2013

With the recent is-work-queued-here test simplification, the nested
if() in try_to_grab_pending() can be collapsed.  Collapse it.

This patch is purely cosmetic.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>

16062836

workqueue: simplify is-work-item-queued-here test · 0b3dae68

Lai Jiangshan authored Feb 06, 2013

Currently, determining whether a work item is queued on a locked pool
involves somewhat convoluted memory barrier dancing.  It goes like the
following.

* When a work item is queued on a pool, work->data is updated before
  work->entry is linked to the pending list with a wmb() inbetween.

* When trying to determine whether a work item is currently queued on
  a pool pointed to by work->data, it locks the pool and looks at
  work->entry.  If work->entry is linked, we then do rmb() and then
  check whether work->data points to the current pool.

This works because, work->data can only point to a pool if it
currently is or were on the pool and,

* If it currently is on the pool, the tests would obviously succeed.

* It it left the pool, its work->entry was cleared under pool->lock,
  so if we're seeing non-empty work->entry, it has to be from the work
  item being linked on another pool.  Because work->data is updated
  before work->entry is linked with wmb() inbetween, work->data update
  from another pool is guaranteed to be visible if we do rmb() after
  seeing non-empty work->entry.  So, we either see empty work->entry
  or we see updated work->data pointin to another pool.

While this works, it's convoluted, to put it mildly.  With recent
updates, it's now guaranteed that work->data points to cwq only while
the work item is queued and that updating work->data to point to cwq
or back to pool is done under pool->lock, so we can simply test
whether work->data points to cwq which is associated with the
currently locked pool instead of the convoluted memory barrier
dancing.

This patch replaces the memory barrier based "are you still here,
really?" test with much simpler "does work->data points to me?" test -
if work->data points to a cwq which is associated with the currently
locked pool, the work item is guaranteed to be queued on the pool as
work->data can start and stop pointing to such cwq only under
pool->lock and the start and stop coincide with queue and dequeue.

tj: Rewrote the comments and description.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>

0b3dae68

workqueue: make work->data point to pool after try_to_grab_pending() · 4468a00f

Lai Jiangshan authored Feb 06, 2013

We plan to use work->data pointing to cwq as the synchronization
invariant when determining whether a given work item is on a locked
pool or not, which requires work->data pointing to cwq only while the
work item is queued on the associated pool.

With delayed_work updated not to overload work->data for target
workqueue recording, the only case where we still have off-queue
work->data pointing to cwq is try_to_grab_pending() which doesn't
update work->data after stealing a queued work item.  There's no
reason for try_to_grab_pending() to not update work->data to point to
the pool instead of cwq, like the normal execution does.

This patch adds set_work_pool_and_keep_pending() which makes
work->data point to pool instead of cwq but keeps the pending bit
unlike set_work_pool_and_clear_pending() (surprise!).

After this patch, it's guaranteed that only queued work items point to
cwqs.

This patch doesn't introduce any visible behavior change.

tj: Renamed the new helper function to match
    set_work_pool_and_clear_pending() and rewrote the description.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>

4468a00f

workqueue: add delayed_work->wq to simplify reentrancy handling · 60c057bc

Lai Jiangshan authored Feb 06, 2013

To avoid executing the same work item from multiple CPUs concurrently,
a work_struct records the last pool it was on in its ->data so that,
on the next queueing, the pool can be queried to determine whether the
work item is still executing or not.

A delayed_work goes through timer before actually being queued on the
target workqueue and the timer needs to know the target workqueue and
CPU. This is currently achieved by modifying delayed_work->work.data
such that it points to the cwq which points to the target workqueue
and the last CPU the work item was on. __queue_delayed_work()
extracts the last CPU from delayed_work->work.data and then combines
it with the target workqueue to create new work.data.

The only thing this rather ugly hack achieves is encoding the target
workqueue into delayed_work->work.data without using a separate field,
which could be a trade off one can make; unfortunately, this entangles
work->data management between regular workqueue and delayed_work code
by setting cwq pointer before the work item is actually queued and
becomes a hindrance for further improvements of work->data handling.

This can be easily made sane by adding a target workqueue field to
delayed_work. While delayed_work is used widely in the kernel and
this does make it a bit larger (<5%), I think this is the right
trade-off especially given the prospect of much saner handling of
work->data which currently involves quite tricky memory barrier
dancing, and don't expect to see any measureable effect.

Add delayed_work->wq and drop the delayed_work->work.data overloading.

tj: Rewrote the description.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>

60c057bc

workqueue: make work_busy() test WORK_STRUCT_PENDING first · 038366c5

Lai Jiangshan authored Feb 06, 2013

Currently, work_busy() first tests whether the work has a pool
associated with it and if not, considers it idle.  This works fine
even for delayed_work.work queued on timer, as __queue_delayed_work()
sets cwq on delayed_work.work - a queued delayed_work always has its
cwq and thus pool associated with it.

However, we're about to update delayed_work queueing and this won't
hold.  Update work_busy() such that it tests WORK_STRUCT_PENDING
before the associated pool.  This doesn't make any noticeable behavior
difference now.

With work_pending() test moved, the function read a lot better with
"if (!pool)" test flipped to positive.  Flip it.

While at it, lose the comment about now non-existent reentrant
workqueues.

tj: Reorganized the function and rewrote the description.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>

038366c5

workqueue: replace WORK_CPU_NONE/LAST with WORK_CPU_END · 6be19588

Lai Jiangshan authored Feb 06, 2013

Now that workqueue has moved away from gcwqs, workqueue no longer has
the need to have a CPU identifier indicating "no cpu associated" - we
now use WORK_OFFQ_POOL_NONE instead - and most uses of WORK_CPU_NONE
are gone.

The only left usage is as the end marker for for_each_*wq*()
iterators, where the name WORK_CPU_NONE is confusing w/o actual
WORK_CPU_NONE usages.  Similarly, WORK_CPU_LAST which equals
WORK_CPU_NONE no longer makes sense.

Replace both WORK_CPU_NONE and LAST with WORK_CPU_END.  This patch
doesn't introduce any functional difference.

tj: s/WORK_CPU_LAST/WORK_CPU_END/ and rewrote the description.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>

6be19588

24 Jan, 2013 17 commits

workqueue: post global_cwq removal cleanups · 706026c2