Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-52077-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 07:30:17 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Cestmir Kalina <ckalina@redhat.com>,
	Alex Gladkov <agladkov@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] workqueue: Enable unbound cpumask update on
 ordered workqueues
Message-ID: <ZcCAefuXoVAFgew4@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20240130183336.511948-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <ZbpElS5sQV_o9NG1@localhost.localdomain>
 <89927d84-279a-492e-83d3-6d3e20b722f7@redhat.com>
 <Zbtv4v2KCKshnCL2@localhost.localdomain>
 <ff2c0ce1-4d40-4661-8d74-c1d81ff505ec@redhat.com>
 <Zb0CU2OrTCv457Wo@localhost.localdomain>
 <Zb0hXLDlXmfmn_Yw@slm.duckdns.org>
 <d7adf125-52d2-47b1-9abb-c2c085eb5382@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d7adf125-52d2-47b1-9abb-c2c085eb5382@redhat.com>

On 02/02/24 14:03, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 2/2/24 12:07, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 03:55:15PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > Indeed. I believe this is what my 3/4 [1] was trying to cure, though. I
> > > still think that with current code the new_attr->cpumask gets first
> > > correctly initialized considering unbound_cpumask
> > > 
> > > apply_wqattrs_prepare ->
> > >    copy_workqueue_attrs(new_attrs, attrs);
> > >    wqattrs_actualize_cpumask(new_attrs, unbound_cpumask);
> > > 
> > > but then overwritten further below using cpu_possible_mask
> > > 
> > > apply_wqattrs_prepare ->
> > >    copy_workqueue_attrs(new_attrs, attrs);
> > >    cpumask_and(new_attrs->cpumask, new_attrs->cpumask, cpu_possible_mask);
> > > 
> > > operation that I honestly seem to still fail to grasp why we need to do.
> > > :)
> > So, imagine the following scenario on a system with four CPUs:
> > 
> > 1. Initially both wq_unbound_cpumask and wq A's cpumask are 0xf.
> > 
> > 2. wq_unbound_cpumask is set to 0x3. A's effective is 0x3.
> > 
> > 3. A's cpumask is set to 0xe, A's effective is 0x3.
> > 
> > 4. wq_unbound_cpumask is restore to 0xf. A's effective should become 0xe.
> > 
> > The reason why we're saving what user requested rather than effective is to
> > be able to do #4 so that the effective is always what's currently allowed
> > from what the user specified for the workqueue.

Thanks for the explanation!

> > Now, if you want the current effective cpumask, that always coincides with
> > the workqueue's dfl_pwq's __pod_cpumask and if you look at the current
> > wq/for-6.9 branch, that's accessible through unbound_effective_cpumask()
> > helper.
> 
> Thank for the explanation, we will use the new unbound_effective_cpumask()
> helper.

Right, that should indeed work.

Best,
Juri