Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-36367-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240113002911.406791-1-tj@kernel.org> <20240113002911.406791-10-tj@kernel.org>
 <CAJhGHyDaNCoXaK4g4fKg3vfBYuQ7r+e8TT8ObrtT3nBcTeeuMg@mail.gmail.com> <ZbBaH2uSqLmJmSsV@slm.duckdns.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZbBaH2uSqLmJmSsV@slm.duckdns.org>
From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 10:54:26 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJhGHyByJkvANA_w2JXeOiZYid9cQ=5a5dZSwSBLgBL_oKkWUg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] workqueue: Implement system-wide nr_active
 enforcement for unbound workqueues
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Naohiro.Aota@wdc.com, kernel-team@meta.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello, Tejun

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 8:30=E2=80=AFAM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:

> > >  /**
> > >   * pwq_activate_first_inactive - Activate the first inactive work it=
em on a pwq
> > >   * @pwq: pool_workqueue of interest
> > > + * @fill: max_active may have increased, try to increase concurrency=
 level
> >
> > I think it is also legitimate to increase the concurrency level ASAP
> > when called from try_to_grab_pending() path.
>
> Can you elaborate why that'd be useful?
>

If an active item for a PWQ is canceled, the PWQ will lose a hard-earned
nr_active and have to wait on the round-robbin queue for another nr_active.

It seems it is unfair for this PWQ. If a user's program pattern is
queuing-checking-cancelling items, it can cause delays for other users
sharing the same workqueue.

Thanks
Lai