diff options
author | Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> | 2010-09-10 10:51:36 -0400 |
---|---|---|
committer | Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> | 2010-09-13 04:26:52 -0400 |
commit | c54fce6eff197d9c57c97afbf6c9722ce434fc8f (patch) | |
tree | c40c9bf65638399b13c47688f20e761cdd0fa89c /Documentation/workqueue.txt | |
parent | 84e1d836ef0759a152578a961894824bde89596f (diff) |
workqueue: add documentation
Update copyright notice and add Documentation/workqueue.txt.
Randy Dunlap, Dave Chinner: misc fixes.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Reviewed-By: Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/workqueue.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | Documentation/workqueue.txt | 380 |
1 files changed, 380 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/workqueue.txt b/Documentation/workqueue.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..e4498a2872c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/workqueue.txt | |||
@@ -0,0 +1,380 @@ | |||
1 | |||
2 | Concurrency Managed Workqueue (cmwq) | ||
3 | |||
4 | September, 2010 Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> | ||
5 | Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org> | ||
6 | |||
7 | CONTENTS | ||
8 | |||
9 | 1. Introduction | ||
10 | 2. Why cmwq? | ||
11 | 3. The Design | ||
12 | 4. Application Programming Interface (API) | ||
13 | 5. Example Execution Scenarios | ||
14 | 6. Guidelines | ||
15 | |||
16 | |||
17 | 1. Introduction | ||
18 | |||
19 | There are many cases where an asynchronous process execution context | ||
20 | is needed and the workqueue (wq) API is the most commonly used | ||
21 | mechanism for such cases. | ||
22 | |||
23 | When such an asynchronous execution context is needed, a work item | ||
24 | describing which function to execute is put on a queue. An | ||
25 | independent thread serves as the asynchronous execution context. The | ||
26 | queue is called workqueue and the thread is called worker. | ||
27 | |||
28 | While there are work items on the workqueue the worker executes the | ||
29 | functions associated with the work items one after the other. When | ||
30 | there is no work item left on the workqueue the worker becomes idle. | ||
31 | When a new work item gets queued, the worker begins executing again. | ||
32 | |||
33 | |||
34 | 2. Why cmwq? | ||
35 | |||
36 | In the original wq implementation, a multi threaded (MT) wq had one | ||
37 | worker thread per CPU and a single threaded (ST) wq had one worker | ||
38 | thread system-wide. A single MT wq needed to keep around the same | ||
39 | number of workers as the number of CPUs. The kernel grew a lot of MT | ||
40 | wq users over the years and with the number of CPU cores continuously | ||
41 | rising, some systems saturated the default 32k PID space just booting | ||
42 | up. | ||
43 | |||
44 | Although MT wq wasted a lot of resource, the level of concurrency | ||
45 | provided was unsatisfactory. The limitation was common to both ST and | ||
46 | MT wq albeit less severe on MT. Each wq maintained its own separate | ||
47 | worker pool. A MT wq could provide only one execution context per CPU | ||
48 | while a ST wq one for the whole system. Work items had to compete for | ||
49 | those very limited execution contexts leading to various problems | ||
50 | including proneness to deadlocks around the single execution context. | ||
51 | |||
52 | The tension between the provided level of concurrency and resource | ||
53 | usage also forced its users to make unnecessary tradeoffs like libata | ||
54 | choosing to use ST wq for polling PIOs and accepting an unnecessary | ||
55 | limitation that no two polling PIOs can progress at the same time. As | ||
56 | MT wq don't provide much better concurrency, users which require | ||
57 | higher level of concurrency, like async or fscache, had to implement | ||
58 | their own thread pool. | ||
59 | |||
60 | Concurrency Managed Workqueue (cmwq) is a reimplementation of wq with | ||
61 | focus on the following goals. | ||
62 | |||
63 | * Maintain compatibility with the original workqueue API. | ||
64 | |||
65 | * Use per-CPU unified worker pools shared by all wq to provide | ||
66 | flexible level of concurrency on demand without wasting a lot of | ||
67 | resource. | ||
68 | |||
69 | * Automatically regulate worker pool and level of concurrency so that | ||
70 | the API users don't need to worry about such details. | ||
71 | |||
72 | |||
73 | 3. The Design | ||
74 | |||
75 | In order to ease the asynchronous execution of functions a new | ||
76 | abstraction, the work item, is introduced. | ||
77 | |||
78 | A work item is a simple struct that holds a pointer to the function | ||
79 | that is to be executed asynchronously. Whenever a driver or subsystem | ||
80 | wants a function to be executed asynchronously it has to set up a work | ||
81 | item pointing to that function and queue that work item on a | ||
82 | workqueue. | ||
83 | |||
84 | Special purpose threads, called worker threads, execute the functions | ||
85 | off of the queue, one after the other. If no work is queued, the | ||
86 | worker threads become idle. These worker threads are managed in so | ||
87 | called thread-pools. | ||
88 | |||
89 | The cmwq design differentiates between the user-facing workqueues that | ||
90 | subsystems and drivers queue work items on and the backend mechanism | ||
91 | which manages thread-pool and processes the queued work items. | ||
92 | |||
93 | The backend is called gcwq. There is one gcwq for each possible CPU | ||
94 | and one gcwq to serve work items queued on unbound workqueues. | ||
95 | |||
96 | Subsystems and drivers can create and queue work items through special | ||
97 | workqueue API functions as they see fit. They can influence some | ||
98 | aspects of the way the work items are executed by setting flags on the | ||
99 | workqueue they are putting the work item on. These flags include | ||
100 | things like CPU locality, reentrancy, concurrency limits and more. To | ||
101 | get a detailed overview refer to the API description of | ||
102 | alloc_workqueue() below. | ||
103 | |||
104 | When a work item is queued to a workqueue, the target gcwq is | ||
105 | determined according to the queue parameters and workqueue attributes | ||
106 | and appended on the shared worklist of the gcwq. For example, unless | ||
107 | specifically overridden, a work item of a bound workqueue will be | ||
108 | queued on the worklist of exactly that gcwq that is associated to the | ||
109 | CPU the issuer is running on. | ||
110 | |||
111 | For any worker pool implementation, managing the concurrency level | ||
112 | (how many execution contexts are active) is an important issue. cmwq | ||
113 | tries to keep the concurrency at a minimal but sufficient level. | ||
114 | Minimal to save resources and sufficient in that the system is used at | ||
115 | its full capacity. | ||
116 | |||
117 | Each gcwq bound to an actual CPU implements concurrency management by | ||
118 | hooking into the scheduler. The gcwq is notified whenever an active | ||
119 | worker wakes up or sleeps and keeps track of the number of the | ||
120 | currently runnable workers. Generally, work items are not expected to | ||
121 | hog a CPU and consume many cycles. That means maintaining just enough | ||
122 | concurrency to prevent work processing from stalling should be | ||
123 | optimal. As long as there are one or more runnable workers on the | ||
124 | CPU, the gcwq doesn't start execution of a new work, but, when the | ||
125 | last running worker goes to sleep, it immediately schedules a new | ||
126 | worker so that the CPU doesn't sit idle while there are pending work | ||
127 | items. This allows using a minimal number of workers without losing | ||
128 | execution bandwidth. | ||
129 | |||
130 | Keeping idle workers around doesn't cost other than the memory space | ||
131 | for kthreads, so cmwq holds onto idle ones for a while before killing | ||
132 | them. | ||
133 | |||
134 | For an unbound wq, the above concurrency management doesn't apply and | ||
135 | the gcwq for the pseudo unbound CPU tries to start executing all work | ||
136 | items as soon as possible. The responsibility of regulating | ||
137 | concurrency level is on the users. There is also a flag to mark a | ||
138 | bound wq to ignore the concurrency management. Please refer to the | ||
139 | API section for details. | ||
140 | |||
141 | Forward progress guarantee relies on that workers can be created when | ||
142 | more execution contexts are necessary, which in turn is guaranteed | ||
143 | through the use of rescue workers. All work items which might be used | ||
144 | on code paths that handle memory reclaim are required to be queued on | ||
145 | wq's that have a rescue-worker reserved for execution under memory | ||
146 | pressure. Else it is possible that the thread-pool deadlocks waiting | ||
147 | for execution contexts to free up. | ||
148 | |||
149 | |||
150 | 4. Application Programming Interface (API) | ||
151 | |||
152 | alloc_workqueue() allocates a wq. The original create_*workqueue() | ||
153 | functions are deprecated and scheduled for removal. alloc_workqueue() | ||
154 | takes three arguments - @name, @flags and @max_active. @name is the | ||
155 | name of the wq and also used as the name of the rescuer thread if | ||
156 | there is one. | ||
157 | |||
158 | A wq no longer manages execution resources but serves as a domain for | ||
159 | forward progress guarantee, flush and work item attributes. @flags | ||
160 | and @max_active control how work items are assigned execution | ||
161 | resources, scheduled and executed. | ||
162 | |||
163 | @flags: | ||
164 | |||
165 | WQ_NON_REENTRANT | ||
166 | |||
167 | By default, a wq guarantees non-reentrance only on the same | ||
168 | CPU. A work item may not be executed concurrently on the same | ||
169 | CPU by multiple workers but is allowed to be executed | ||
170 | concurrently on multiple CPUs. This flag makes sure | ||
171 | non-reentrance is enforced across all CPUs. Work items queued | ||
172 | to a non-reentrant wq are guaranteed to be executed by at most | ||
173 | one worker system-wide at any given time. | ||
174 | |||
175 | WQ_UNBOUND | ||
176 | |||
177 | Work items queued to an unbound wq are served by a special | ||
178 | gcwq which hosts workers which are not bound to any specific | ||
179 | CPU. This makes the wq behave as a simple execution context | ||
180 | provider without concurrency management. The unbound gcwq | ||
181 | tries to start execution of work items as soon as possible. | ||
182 | Unbound wq sacrifices locality but is useful for the following | ||
183 | cases. | ||
184 | |||
185 | * Wide fluctuation in the concurrency level requirement is | ||
186 | expected and using bound wq may end up creating large number | ||
187 | of mostly unused workers across different CPUs as the issuer | ||
188 | hops through different CPUs. | ||
189 | |||
190 | * Long running CPU intensive workloads which can be better | ||
191 | managed by the system scheduler. | ||
192 | |||
193 | WQ_FREEZEABLE | ||
194 | |||
195 | A freezeable wq participates in the freeze phase of the system | ||
196 | suspend operations. Work items on the wq are drained and no | ||
197 | new work item starts execution until thawed. | ||
198 | |||
199 | WQ_RESCUER | ||
200 | |||
201 | All wq which might be used in the memory reclaim paths _MUST_ | ||
202 | have this flag set. This reserves one worker exclusively for | ||
203 | the execution of this wq under memory pressure. | ||
204 | |||
205 | WQ_HIGHPRI | ||
206 | |||
207 | Work items of a highpri wq are queued at the head of the | ||
208 | worklist of the target gcwq and start execution regardless of | ||
209 | the current concurrency level. In other words, highpri work | ||
210 | items will always start execution as soon as execution | ||
211 | resource is available. | ||
212 | |||
213 | Ordering among highpri work items is preserved - a highpri | ||
214 | work item queued after another highpri work item will start | ||
215 | execution after the earlier highpri work item starts. | ||
216 | |||
217 | Although highpri work items are not held back by other | ||
218 | runnable work items, they still contribute to the concurrency | ||
219 | level. Highpri work items in runnable state will prevent | ||
220 | non-highpri work items from starting execution. | ||
221 | |||
222 | This flag is meaningless for unbound wq. | ||
223 | |||
224 | WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE | ||
225 | |||
226 | Work items of a CPU intensive wq do not contribute to the | ||
227 | concurrency level. In other words, runnable CPU intensive | ||
228 | work items will not prevent other work items from starting | ||
229 | execution. This is useful for bound work items which are | ||
230 | expected to hog CPU cycles so that their execution is | ||
231 | regulated by the system scheduler. | ||
232 | |||
233 | Although CPU intensive work items don't contribute to the | ||
234 | concurrency level, start of their executions is still | ||
235 | regulated by the concurrency management and runnable | ||
236 | non-CPU-intensive work items can delay execution of CPU | ||
237 | intensive work items. | ||
238 | |||
239 | This flag is meaningless for unbound wq. | ||
240 | |||
241 | WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE | ||
242 | |||
243 | This combination makes the wq avoid interaction with | ||
244 | concurrency management completely and behave as a simple | ||
245 | per-CPU execution context provider. Work items queued on a | ||
246 | highpri CPU-intensive wq start execution as soon as resources | ||
247 | are available and don't affect execution of other work items. | ||
248 | |||
249 | @max_active: | ||
250 | |||
251 | @max_active determines the maximum number of execution contexts per | ||
252 | CPU which can be assigned to the work items of a wq. For example, | ||
253 | with @max_active of 16, at most 16 work items of the wq can be | ||
254 | executing at the same time per CPU. | ||
255 | |||
256 | Currently, for a bound wq, the maximum limit for @max_active is 512 | ||
257 | and the default value used when 0 is specified is 256. For an unbound | ||
258 | wq, the limit is higher of 512 and 4 * num_possible_cpus(). These | ||
259 | values are chosen sufficiently high such that they are not the | ||
260 | limiting factor while providing protection in runaway cases. | ||
261 | |||
262 | The number of active work items of a wq is usually regulated by the | ||
263 | users of the wq, more specifically, by how many work items the users | ||
264 | may queue at the same time. Unless there is a specific need for | ||
265 | throttling the number of active work items, specifying '0' is | ||
266 | recommended. | ||
267 | |||
268 | Some users depend on the strict execution ordering of ST wq. The | ||
269 | combination of @max_active of 1 and WQ_UNBOUND is used to achieve this | ||
270 | behavior. Work items on such wq are always queued to the unbound gcwq | ||
271 | and only one work item can be active at any given time thus achieving | ||
272 | the same ordering property as ST wq. | ||
273 | |||
274 | |||
275 | 5. Example Execution Scenarios | ||
276 | |||
277 | The following example execution scenarios try to illustrate how cmwq | ||
278 | behave under different configurations. | ||
279 | |||
280 | Work items w0, w1, w2 are queued to a bound wq q0 on the same CPU. | ||
281 | w0 burns CPU for 5ms then sleeps for 10ms then burns CPU for 5ms | ||
282 | again before finishing. w1 and w2 burn CPU for 5ms then sleep for | ||
283 | 10ms. | ||
284 | |||
285 | Ignoring all other tasks, works and processing overhead, and assuming | ||
286 | simple FIFO scheduling, the following is one highly simplified version | ||
287 | of possible sequences of events with the original wq. | ||
288 | |||
289 | TIME IN MSECS EVENT | ||
290 | 0 w0 starts and burns CPU | ||
291 | 5 w0 sleeps | ||
292 | 15 w0 wakes up and burns CPU | ||
293 | 20 w0 finishes | ||
294 | 20 w1 starts and burns CPU | ||
295 | 25 w1 sleeps | ||
296 | 35 w1 wakes up and finishes | ||
297 | 35 w2 starts and burns CPU | ||
298 | 40 w2 sleeps | ||
299 | 50 w2 wakes up and finishes | ||
300 | |||
301 | And with cmwq with @max_active >= 3, | ||
302 | |||
303 | TIME IN MSECS EVENT | ||
304 | 0 w0 starts and burns CPU | ||
305 | 5 w0 sleeps | ||
306 | 5 w1 starts and burns CPU | ||
307 | 10 w1 sleeps | ||
308 | 10 w2 starts and burns CPU | ||
309 | 15 w2 sleeps | ||
310 | 15 w0 wakes up and burns CPU | ||
311 | 20 w0 finishes | ||
312 | 20 w1 wakes up and finishes | ||
313 | 25 w2 wakes up and finishes | ||
314 | |||
315 | If @max_active == 2, | ||
316 | |||
317 | TIME IN MSECS EVENT | ||
318 | 0 w0 starts and burns CPU | ||
319 | 5 w0 sleeps | ||
320 | 5 w1 starts and burns CPU | ||
321 | 10 w1 sleeps | ||
322 | 15 w0 wakes up and burns CPU | ||
323 | 20 w0 finishes | ||
324 | 20 w1 wakes up and finishes | ||
325 | 20 w2 starts and burns CPU | ||
326 | 25 w2 sleeps | ||
327 | 35 w2 wakes up and finishes | ||
328 | |||
329 | Now, let's assume w1 and w2 are queued to a different wq q1 which has | ||
330 | WQ_HIGHPRI set, | ||
331 | |||
332 | TIME IN MSECS EVENT | ||
333 | 0 w1 and w2 start and burn CPU | ||
334 | 5 w1 sleeps | ||
335 | 10 w2 sleeps | ||
336 | 10 w0 starts and burns CPU | ||
337 | 15 w0 sleeps | ||
338 | 15 w1 wakes up and finishes | ||
339 | 20 w2 wakes up and finishes | ||
340 | 25 w0 wakes up and burns CPU | ||
341 | 30 w0 finishes | ||
342 | |||
343 | If q1 has WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE set, | ||
344 | |||
345 | TIME IN MSECS EVENT | ||
346 | 0 w0 starts and burns CPU | ||
347 | 5 w0 sleeps | ||
348 | 5 w1 and w2 start and burn CPU | ||
349 | 10 w1 sleeps | ||
350 | 15 w2 sleeps | ||
351 | 15 w0 wakes up and burns CPU | ||
352 | 20 w0 finishes | ||
353 | 20 w1 wakes up and finishes | ||
354 | 25 w2 wakes up and finishes | ||
355 | |||
356 | |||
357 | 6. Guidelines | ||
358 | |||
359 | * Do not forget to use WQ_RESCUER if a wq may process work items which | ||
360 | are used during memory reclaim. Each wq with WQ_RESCUER set has one | ||
361 | rescuer thread reserved for it. If there is dependency among | ||
362 | multiple work items used during memory reclaim, they should be | ||
363 | queued to separate wq each with WQ_RESCUER. | ||
364 | |||
365 | * Unless strict ordering is required, there is no need to use ST wq. | ||
366 | |||
367 | * Unless there is a specific need, using 0 for @max_active is | ||
368 | recommended. In most use cases, concurrency level usually stays | ||
369 | well under the default limit. | ||
370 | |||
371 | * A wq serves as a domain for forward progress guarantee (WQ_RESCUER), | ||
372 | flush and work item attributes. Work items which are not involved | ||
373 | in memory reclaim and don't need to be flushed as a part of a group | ||
374 | of work items, and don't require any special attribute, can use one | ||
375 | of the system wq. There is no difference in execution | ||
376 | characteristics between using a dedicated wq and a system wq. | ||
377 | |||
378 | * Unless work items are expected to consume a huge amount of CPU | ||
379 | cycles, using a bound wq is usually beneficial due to the increased | ||
380 | level of locality in wq operations and work item execution. | ||