[ Upstream commit 0687c66b5f666b5ad433f4e94251590d9bc9d10e ]
The debug_work_activate() is called on the premise that
the work can be inserted, because if wq be in WQ_DRAINING
status, insert work may be failed.
Fixes: e41e704bc4f4 ("workqueue: improve destroy_workqueue() debuggability")
Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 640f17c82460e9724fd256f0a1f5d99e7ff0bda4 ]
create_worker() will already set the right affinity using
kthread_bind_mask(), this means only the rescuer will need to change
it's affinity.
Howveer, while in cpu-hot-unplug a regular task is not allowed to run
on online&&!active as it would be pushed away quite agressively. We
need KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU to survive in that environment.
Therefore set the affinity after getting that magic flag.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Tested-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210121103506.826629830@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 01341fbd0d8d4e717fc1231cdffe00343088ce0b ]
In realtime scenario, We do not want to have interference on the
isolated cpu cores. but when invoking alloc_workqueue() for percpu wq
on the housekeeping cpu, it kick a kworker on the isolated cpu.
alloc_workqueue
pwq_adjust_max_active
wake_up_worker
The comment in pwq_adjust_max_active() said:
"Need to kick a worker after thawed or an unbound wq's
max_active is bumped"
So it is unnecessary to kick a kworker for percpu's wq when invoking
alloc_workqueue(). this patch only kick a worker based on the actual
activation of delayed works.
Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 62849a9612924a655c67cf6962920544aa5c20db ]
The kernel test robot triggered a warning with the following race:
task-ctx A interrupt-ctx B
worker
-> process_one_work()
-> work_item()
-> schedule();
-> sched_submit_work()
-> wq_worker_sleeping()
-> ->sleeping = 1
atomic_dec_and_test(nr_running)
__schedule(); *interrupt*
async_page_fault()
-> local_irq_enable();
-> schedule();
-> sched_submit_work()
-> wq_worker_sleeping()
-> if (WARN_ON(->sleeping)) return
-> __schedule()
-> sched_update_worker()
-> wq_worker_running()
-> atomic_inc(nr_running);
-> ->sleeping = 0;
-> sched_update_worker()
-> wq_worker_running()
if (!->sleeping) return
In this context the warning is pointless everything is fine.
An interrupt before wq_worker_sleeping() will perform the ->sleeping
assignment (0 -> 1 > 0) twice.
An interrupt after wq_worker_sleeping() will trigger the warning and
nr_running will be decremented (by A) and incremented once (only by B, A
will skip it). This is the case until the ->sleeping is zeroed again in
wq_worker_running().
Remove the WARN statement because this condition may happen. Document
that preemption around wq_worker_sleeping() needs to be disabled to
protect ->sleeping and not just as an optimisation.
Fixes: 6d25be5782e48 ("sched/core, workqueues: Distangle worker accounting from rq lock")
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200327074308.GY11705@shao2-debian
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Zqiang