Messages in this thread | | | From | Lai Jiangshan <> | Date | Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:53:49 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH -tip V3 3/8] workqueue: introduce wq_online_cpumask |
| |
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 10:41 AM Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 9:56 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 10:51:11AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > > From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com> > > > > > > wq_online_cpumask is the cached result of cpu_online_mask with the > > > going-down cpu cleared. > > > > You can't use cpu_active_mask ? > > > When a cpu is going out: > (cpu_active_mask is not protected by workqueue mutexs.) > > create_worker() for unbound pool | cpu offlining > check cpu_active_mask | > | remove bit from cpu_active_mask > | no cpu in pool->attrs->cpumask is active > set pool->attrs->cpumask to worker| > and hit the warning > > > And when a cpu is onlining, there may be some workers which were just created > after the workqueue hotplug callback is finished but before cpu_active_mask > was updated. workqueue has not call back after cpu_active_mask updated and > these workers' cpumask is not updated. > > For percpu workers, these problems can be handled with the help of > POOL_DISASSOCIATED which is protected by workqueue mutexs and the > help of sched/core.c which doesn't warn when per-cpu-kthread. > > For unbound workers, the way to handle it without using wq_online_cpumask > is much more complex when a cpu is going out.
To have replied too soon, let me think about it again.
| |