Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2023 14:23:05 +0000
From:   Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     jiangshanlai@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@meta.com, "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/22] scsi: Use alloc_ordered_workqueue() to create
 ordered workqueues
Message-ID: <20230421142305.GA1063244@t480-pf1aa2c2.fritz.box>
References: <20230421025046.4008499-1-tj@kernel.org>
 <20230421025046.4008499-13-tj@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230421025046.4008499-13-tj@kernel.org>
Sender: Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 04:50:36PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> BACKGROUND
> ==========
> 
> When multiple work items are queued to a workqueue, their execution order
> doesn't match the queueing order. They may get executed in any order and
> simultaneously. When fully serialized execution - one by one in the queueing
> order - is needed, an ordered workqueue should be used which can be created
> with alloc_ordered_workqueue().
> 
> However, alloc_ordered_workqueue() was a later addition. Before it, an
> ordered workqueue could be obtained by creating an UNBOUND workqueue with
> @max_active==1. This originally was an implementation side-effect which was
> broken by 4c16bd327c74 ("workqueue: restore WQ_UNBOUND/max_active==1 to be
> ordered"). Because there were users that depended on the ordered execution,
> 5c0338c68706 ("workqueue: restore WQ_UNBOUND/max_active==1 to be ordered")
> made workqueue allocation path to implicitly promote UNBOUND workqueues w/
> @max_active==1 to ordered workqueues.
> 
> While this has worked okay, overloading the UNBOUND allocation interface
> this way creates other issues. It's difficult to tell whether a given
> workqueue actually needs to be ordered and users that legitimately want a
> min concurrency level wq unexpectedly gets an ordered one instead. With
> planned UNBOUND workqueue updates to improve execution locality and more
> prevalence of chiplet designs which can benefit from such improvements, this
> isn't a state we wanna be in forever.
> 
> This patch series audits all callsites that create an UNBOUND workqueue w/
> @max_active==1 and converts them to alloc_ordered_workqueue() as necessary.
> 
> WHAT TO LOOK FOR
> ================
> 
> The conversions are from
> 
>   alloc_workqueue(WQ_UNBOUND | flags, 1, args..)
> 
> to
> 
>   alloc_ordered_workqueue(flags, args...)
> 
> which don't cause any functional changes. If you know that fully ordered
> execution is not ncessary, please let me know. I'll drop the conversion and
> instead add a comment noting the fact to reduce confusion while conversion
> is in progress.
> 
> If you aren't fully sure, it's completely fine to let the conversion
> through. The behavior will stay exactly the same and we can always
> reconsider later.
> 
> As there are follow-up workqueue core changes, I'd really appreciate if the
> patch can be routed through the workqueue tree w/ your acks. Thanks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Cc: "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>
> Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
> Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c  |  5 ++---
>  drivers/scsi/hosts.c    | 12 ++++++------
>  drivers/scsi/libiscsi.c |  5 ++---
>  3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 

The conversions look good to me.


Reviewed-by: Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>

-- 
Best Regards, Benjamin Block        /        Linux on IBM Z Kernel Development
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH    /   https://www.ibm.com/privacy
Vors. Aufs.-R.: Gregor Pillen         /         Gesch?ftsf?hrung: David Faller
Sitz der Ges.: B?blingen     /    Registergericht: AmtsG Stuttgart, HRB 243294