Techwizz/kernel-fxtec-pro1x
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

workqueue: replace POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS flag with worker_pool->manager_arb

Browse source 
POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS is used to synchronize the manager role.
Synchronizing among workers doesn't need blocking and that's why it's
implemented as a flag.

It got converted to a mutex a while back to add blocking wait from CPU
hotplug path - 6037315269 ("workqueue: use mutex for global_cwq
manager exclusion").  Later it turned out that synchronization among
workers and cpu hotplug need to be done separately.  Eventually,
POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS is restored and workqueue->manager_mutex got
morphed into workqueue->assoc_mutex - 552a37e936 ("workqueue: restore
POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS") and b2eb83d123 ("workqueue: rename
manager_mutex to assoc_mutex").

Now, we're gonna need to be able to lock out managers from
destroy_workqueue() to support multiple unbound pools with custom
attributes making it again necessary to be able to block on the
manager role.  This patch replaces POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS with
worker_pool->manager_arb.

This patch doesn't introduce any behavior changes.

v2: s/manager_mutex/manager_arb/

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
Tejun Heo 2013-03-12 11:30:00 -07:00
parent fa1b54e69b
commit 34a06bd6b6
1 changed files with 10 additions and 11 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

21
kernel/workqueue.c
View file

@ -64,7 +64,6 @@ enum {
* create_worker() is in progress.
*/
POOL_MANAGE_WORKERS = 1 << 0, /* need to manage workers */
POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS = 1 << 1, /* managing workers */
POOL_DISASSOCIATED = 1 << 2, /* cpu can't serve workers */
POOL_FREEZING = 1 << 3, /* freeze in progress */
@ -145,6 +144,7 @@ struct worker_pool {
DECLARE_HASHTABLE(busy_hash, BUSY_WORKER_HASH_ORDER);
/* L: hash of busy workers */
struct mutex manager_arb; /* manager arbitration */
struct mutex assoc_mutex; /* protect POOL_DISASSOCIATED */
struct ida worker_ida; /* L: for worker IDs */
@ -706,7 +706,7 @@ static bool need_to_manage_workers(struct worker_pool *pool)
/* Do we have too many workers and should some go away? */
static bool too_many_workers(struct worker_pool *pool)
{
bool managing = pool->flags & POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS;
bool managing = mutex_is_locked(&pool->manager_arb);
int nr_idle = pool->nr_idle + managing; /* manager is considered idle */
int nr_busy = pool->nr_workers - nr_idle;
@ -2029,19 +2029,17 @@ static bool manage_workers(struct worker *worker)
struct worker_pool *pool = worker->pool;
bool ret = false;
if (pool->flags & POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS)
if (!mutex_trylock(&pool->manager_arb))
return ret;
pool->flags |= POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS;
/*
* To simplify both worker management and CPU hotplug, hold off
* management while hotplug is in progress. CPU hotplug path can't
* grab %POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS to achieve this because that can
* lead to idle worker depletion (all become busy thinking someone
* else is managing) which in turn can result in deadlock under
* extreme circumstances. Use @pool->assoc_mutex to synchronize
* manager against CPU hotplug.
* grab @pool->manager_arb to achieve this because that can lead to
* idle worker depletion (all become busy thinking someone else is
* managing) which in turn can result in deadlock under extreme
* circumstances. Use @pool->assoc_mutex to synchronize manager
* against CPU hotplug.
*
* assoc_mutex would always be free unless CPU hotplug is in
* progress. trylock first without dropping @pool->lock.
@ -2077,8 +2075,8 @@ static bool manage_workers(struct worker *worker)
ret |= maybe_destroy_workers(pool);
ret |= maybe_create_worker(pool);
pool->flags &= ~POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS;
mutex_unlock(&pool->assoc_mutex);
mutex_unlock(&pool->manager_arb);
return ret;
}
@ -3806,6 +3804,7 @@ static int __init init_workqueues(void)
setup_timer(&pool->mayday_timer, pool_mayday_timeout,
(unsigned long)pool);
mutex_init(&pool->manager_arb);
mutex_init(&pool->assoc_mutex);
ida_init(&pool->worker_ida);