Unbound wqs aren't concurrency-managed and try to execute work items
as soon as possible. This is currently achieved by implicitly setting
%WQ_HIGHPRI on all unbound workqueues; however, WQ_HIGHPRI
implementation is about to be restructured and this usage won't be
Add an explicit chain-wakeup path for unbound workqueues in
process_one_work() instead of piggy backing on %WQ_HIGHPRI.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
kernel/workqueue.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 9a3128d..27637c2 100644
@@ -580,6 +580,10 @@ static bool __need_more_worker(struct global_cwq *gcwq)
* Need to wake up a worker? Called from anything but currently
* running workers.
+ * Note that, because unbound workers never contribute to nr_running, this
+ * function will always return %true for unbound gcwq as long as the
+ * worklist isn't empty.
static bool need_more_worker(struct global_cwq *gcwq)
@@ -1867,6 +1871,13 @@ __acquires(&gcwq->lock)
worker_set_flags(worker, WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE, true);
+ * Unbound gcwq isn't concurrency managed and work items should be
+ * executed ASAP. Wake up another worker if necessary.
+ if ((worker->flags & WORKER_UNBOUND) && need_more_worker(gcwq))
@@ -2984,13 +2995,6 @@ struct workqueue_struct *__alloc_workqueue_key(const char *fmt,
if (flags & WQ_MEM_RECLAIM)
flags |= WQ_RESCUER;
- * Unbound workqueues aren't concurrency managed and should be
- * dispatched to workers immediately.
- if (flags & WQ_UNBOUND)
- flags |= WQ_HIGHPRI;
max_active = max_active ?: WQ_DFL_ACTIVE;
max_active = wq_clamp_max_active(max_active, flags, wq->name);