Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 13 Nov 2018 08:34:00 -0800
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aarcange@redhat.com,
        aaron.lu@intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        alex.williamson@redhat.com, bsd@redhat.com,
        darrick.wong@oracle.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        jgg@mellanox.com, jwadams@google.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        mhocko@kernel.org, mike.kravetz@oracle.com,
        Pavel.Tatashin@microsoft.com, prasad.singamsetty@oracle.com,
        rdunlap@infradead.org, steven.sistare@oracle.com,
        tim.c.chen@intel.com, vbabka@suse.cz
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 05/13] workqueue, ktask: renice helper threads to
 prevent starvation
Message-ID: <20181113163400.GK2509588@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
References: <20181105165558.11698-1-daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
 <20181105165558.11698-6-daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181105165558.11698-6-daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello, Daniel.

On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 11:55:50AM -0500, Daniel Jordan wrote:
>  static bool start_flush_work(struct work_struct *work, struct wq_barrier *barr,
> -			     bool from_cancel)
> +			     struct nice_work *nice_work, int flags)
>  {
>  	struct worker *worker = NULL;
>  	struct worker_pool *pool;
> @@ -2868,11 +2926,19 @@ static bool start_flush_work(struct work_struct *work, struct wq_barrier *barr,
>  	if (pwq) {
>  		if (unlikely(pwq->pool != pool))
>  			goto already_gone;
> +
> +		/* not yet started, insert linked work before work */
> +		if (unlikely(flags & WORK_FLUSH_AT_NICE))
> +			insert_nice_work(pwq, nice_work, work);

So, I'm not sure this works that well.  e.g. what if the work item is
waiting for other work items which are at lower priority?  Also, in
this case, it'd be a lot simpler to simply dequeue the work item and
execute it synchronously.

>  	} else {
>  		worker = find_worker_executing_work(pool, work);
>  		if (!worker)
>  			goto already_gone;
>  		pwq = worker->current_pwq;
> +		if (unlikely(flags & WORK_FLUSH_AT_NICE)) {
> +			set_user_nice(worker->task, nice_work->nice);
> +			worker->flags |= WORKER_NICED;
> +		}
>  	}

I'm not sure about this.  Can you see whether canceling & executing
synchronously is enough to address the latency regression?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun