Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-11676-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:05:49 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Naohiro.Aota@wdc.com,
	kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] workqueue: Move pwq->max_active to wq->max_active
Message-ID: <ZYsyHZg6tMAtMp4Q@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <20231220072529.1036099-1-tj@kernel.org>
 <20231220072529.1036099-2-tj@kernel.org>
 <CAJhGHyB-8hU7W9HV1ctD67Q9d9o+tmhesYqtBcMEmO1+taF=cw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAJhGHyB-8hU7W9HV1ctD67Q9d9o+tmhesYqtBcMEmO1+taF=cw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 05:13:40PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 3:25 PM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > +static void wq_adjust_max_active(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
> > +{
> > +       struct pool_workqueue *pwq;
> > +
> > +       lockdep_assert_held(&wq->mutex);
> > +
> > +       if ((wq->flags & WQ_FREEZABLE) && workqueue_freezing) {
> > +               wq->max_active = 0;
> > +               return;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       if (wq->max_active == wq->saved_max_active)
> > +               return;
> > +
> > +       wq->max_active = wq->saved_max_active;
> > +
> 
> If a work item gets queued now, it will get scheduled earlier than a
> previous queued one which is still in the inactive list.

Is that a problem tho? There's no execution order guarantee except for
ordered workqueues which is not affected by this. In a later change, we
switch to list of pending pwqs instead of work items and the issue ordering
is lost anyway. This isn't a significant departure from previous behaviors
either given that there has never been ordering across pwq boundaries.

> To solve it, I recommend adding wq->queue_max_active which will be
> updated after the following code and used only when queue_work().
> But it requires round-robin through PWQs the second time after
> wq->queue_max_active is updated to catch the new inactivated items.

I'm reluctant to add complications for this given that it's not a real
problem to begin with and the operation is pretty cold.

> Or just keep pwq->max_active and will be
> updated after activating inactivated items and used only when queue_work().

This probably is simpler but would make things more complicated. I'm not
sure it's worth it.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun