Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:47:40 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] kmod: Use system_unbound_wq instead of khelper
Message-ID: <20150710134739.GA25078@lerouge>
References: <1436465237-22031-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <1436465237-22031-3-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <20150709224406.GA17528@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150709224406.GA17528@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2098
Lines: 50

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:44:06AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/09, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > We need to launch the usermodehelper kernel threads with the widest
> > affinity and this is why we have khelper for. This workqueue has unbound
> > properties and thus a wide affinity inherited by all its children.
> >
> > Now khelper also has special properties that we aren't much interested
> > in: ordered and singlethread. There is really no need about ordering as
> > all we do is creating kernel threads. This can be done concurrently.
> > And singlethread is a useless limitation as well.
> >
> > The workqueue engine already proposes generic unbound workqueues that
> > don't share these useless properties and handle well parallel jobs.
> >
> > Lets just use them.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> 
> Well yes, but it seems that you missed another part of my email ;)
> 
> If we just change usermodehelper to use system_unbound_wq then we
> probably should keep set_cpus_allowed_ptr() removed by 4/5.
> 
> Note that system_unbound_wq has ->no_numa == F, so its worker threads
> are NUMA bound. Perhaps this is not that bad, I do not know. But at
> least this means that 4/5 needs more documentation/justification.

Duh! I really thought it was one thread wide affine.
I didn't see that while testing because my box is not NUMA and so I
saw a global affinity.

Now perhaps it is a good thing in the end. At least in nohz full it
doesn't change anything as we affine that workqueue too. But we must
be sure that a single NUMA node is enough to handle typical loads of
usermodehelper.

If nobody can't tell, I suppose all we can do is stay conservative and
create a global no_numa version of system_unbound_wq...

> 
> But as for this particular patch I obviously like it, khelper_wq
> must die imo ;)

Sure :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/