| ==================================== | |
| Concurrency Managed Workqueue (cmwq) | |
| ==================================== | |
| :Date: September, 2010 | |
| :Author: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> | |
| :Author: Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org> | |
| Introduction | |
| ============ | |
| There are many cases where an asynchronous process execution context | |
| is needed and the workqueue (wq) API is the most commonly used | |
| mechanism for such cases. | |
| When such an asynchronous execution context is needed, a work item | |
| describing which function to execute is put on a queue. An | |
| independent thread serves as the asynchronous execution context. The | |
| queue is called workqueue and the thread is called worker. | |
| While there are work items on the workqueue the worker executes the | |
| functions associated with the work items one after the other. When | |
| there is no work item left on the workqueue the worker becomes idle. | |
| When a new work item gets queued, the worker begins executing again. | |
| Why cmwq? | |
| ========= | |
| In the original wq implementation, a multi threaded (MT) wq had one | |
| worker thread per CPU and a single threaded (ST) wq had one worker | |
| thread system-wide. A single MT wq needed to keep around the same | |
| number of workers as the number of CPUs. The kernel grew a lot of MT | |
| wq users over the years and with the number of CPU cores continuously | |
| rising, some systems saturated the default 32k PID space just booting | |
| up. | |
| Although MT wq wasted a lot of resource, the level of concurrency | |
| provided was unsatisfactory. The limitation was common to both ST and | |
| MT wq albeit less severe on MT. Each wq maintained its own separate | |
| worker pool. An MT wq could provide only one execution context per CPU | |
| while an ST wq one for the whole system. Work items had to compete for | |
| those very limited execution contexts leading to various problems | |
| including proneness to deadlocks around the single execution context. | |
| The tension between the provided level of concurrency and resource | |
| usage also forced its users to make unnecessary tradeoffs like libata | |
| choosing to use ST wq for polling PIOs and accepting an unnecessary | |
| limitation that no two polling PIOs can progress at the same time. As | |
| MT wq don't provide much better concurrency, users which require | |
| higher level of concurrency, like async or fscache, had to implement | |
| their own thread pool. | |
| Concurrency Managed Workqueue (cmwq) is a reimplementation of wq with | |
| focus on the following goals. | |
| * Maintain compatibility with the original workqueue API. | |
| * Use per-CPU unified worker pools shared by all wq to provide | |
| flexible level of concurrency on demand without wasting a lot of | |
| resource. | |
| * Automatically regulate worker pool and level of concurrency so that | |
| the API users don't need to worry about such details. | |
| The Design | |
| ========== | |
| In order to ease the asynchronous execution of functions a new | |
| abstraction, the work item, is introduced. | |
| A work item is a simple struct that holds a pointer to the function | |
| that is to be executed asynchronously. Whenever a driver or subsystem | |
| wants a function to be executed asynchronously it has to set up a work | |
| item pointing to that function and queue that work item on a | |
| workqueue. | |
| Special purpose threads, called worker threads, execute the functions | |
| off of the queue, one after the other. If no work is queued, the | |
| worker threads become idle. These worker threads are managed in so | |
| called worker-pools. | |
| The cmwq design differentiates between the user-facing workqueues that | |
| subsystems and drivers queue work items on and the backend mechanism | |
| which manages worker-pools and processes the queued work items. | |
| There are two worker-pools, one for normal work items and the other | |
| for high priority ones, for each possible CPU and some extra | |
| worker-pools to serve work items queued on unbound workqueues - the | |
| number of these backing pools is dynamic. | |
| Subsystems and drivers can create and queue work items through special | |
| workqueue API functions as they see fit. They can influence some | |
| aspects of the way the work items are executed by setting flags on the | |
| workqueue they are putting the work item on. These flags include | |
| things like CPU locality, concurrency limits, priority and more. To | |
| get a detailed overview refer to the API description of | |
| ``alloc_workqueue()`` below. | |
| When a work item is queued to a workqueue, the target worker-pool is | |
| determined according to the queue parameters and workqueue attributes | |
| and appended on the shared worklist of the worker-pool. For example, | |
| unless specifically overridden, a work item of a bound workqueue will | |
| be queued on the worklist of either normal or highpri worker-pool that | |
| is associated to the CPU the issuer is running on. | |
| For any worker pool implementation, managing the concurrency level | |
| (how many execution contexts are active) is an important issue. cmwq | |
| tries to keep the concurrency at a minimal but sufficient level. | |
| Minimal to save resources and sufficient in that the system is used at | |
| its full capacity. | |
| Each worker-pool bound to an actual CPU implements concurrency | |
| management by hooking into the scheduler. The worker-pool is notified | |
| whenever an active worker wakes up or sleeps and keeps track of the | |
| number of the currently runnable workers. Generally, work items are | |
| not expected to hog a CPU and consume many cycles. That means | |
| maintaining just enough concurrency to prevent work processing from | |
| stalling should be optimal. As long as there are one or more runnable | |
| workers on the CPU, the worker-pool doesn't start execution of a new | |
| work, but, when the last running worker goes to sleep, it immediately | |
| schedules a new worker so that the CPU doesn't sit idle while there | |
| are pending work items. This allows using a minimal number of workers | |
| without losing execution bandwidth. | |
| Keeping idle workers around doesn't cost other than the memory space | |
| for kthreads, so cmwq holds onto idle ones for a while before killing | |
| them. | |
| For unbound workqueues, the number of backing pools is dynamic. | |
| Unbound workqueue can be assigned custom attributes using | |
| ``apply_workqueue_attrs()`` and workqueue will automatically create | |
| backing worker pools matching the attributes. The responsibility of | |
| regulating concurrency level is on the users. There is also a flag to | |
| mark a bound wq to ignore the concurrency management. Please refer to | |
| the API section for details. | |
| Forward progress guarantee relies on that workers can be created when | |
| more execution contexts are necessary, which in turn is guaranteed | |
| through the use of rescue workers. All work items which might be used | |
| on code paths that handle memory reclaim are required to be queued on | |
| wq's that have a rescue-worker reserved for execution under memory | |
| pressure. Else it is possible that the worker-pool deadlocks waiting | |
| for execution contexts to free up. | |
| Application Programming Interface (API) | |
| ======================================= | |
| ``alloc_workqueue()`` allocates a wq. The original | |
| ``create_*workqueue()`` functions are deprecated and scheduled for | |
| removal. ``alloc_workqueue()`` takes three arguments - ``@name``, | |
| ``@flags`` and ``@max_active``. ``@name`` is the name of the wq and | |
| also used as the name of the rescuer thread if there is one. | |
| A wq no longer manages execution resources but serves as a domain for | |
| forward progress guarantee, flush and work item attributes. ``@flags`` | |
| and ``@max_active`` control how work items are assigned execution | |
| resources, scheduled and executed. | |
| ``flags`` | |
| --------- | |
| ``WQ_UNBOUND`` | |
| Work items queued to an unbound wq are served by the special | |
| worker-pools which host workers which are not bound to any | |
| specific CPU. This makes the wq behave as a simple execution | |
| context provider without concurrency management. The unbound | |
| worker-pools try to start execution of work items as soon as | |
| possible. Unbound wq sacrifices locality but is useful for | |
| the following cases. | |
| * Wide fluctuation in the concurrency level requirement is | |
| expected and using bound wq may end up creating large number | |
| of mostly unused workers across different CPUs as the issuer | |
| hops through different CPUs. | |
| * Long running CPU intensive workloads which can be better | |
| managed by the system scheduler. | |
| ``WQ_FREEZABLE`` | |
| A freezable wq participates in the freeze phase of the system | |
| suspend operations. Work items on the wq are drained and no | |
| new work item starts execution until thawed. | |
| ``WQ_MEM_RECLAIM`` | |
| All wq which might be used in the memory reclaim paths **MUST** | |
| have this flag set. The wq is guaranteed to have at least one | |
| execution context regardless of memory pressure. | |
| ``WQ_HIGHPRI`` | |
| Work items of a highpri wq are queued to the highpri | |
| worker-pool of the target cpu. Highpri worker-pools are | |
| served by worker threads with elevated nice level. | |
| Note that normal and highpri worker-pools don't interact with | |
| each other. Each maintains its separate pool of workers and | |
| implements concurrency management among its workers. | |
| ``WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE`` | |
| Work items of a CPU intensive wq do not contribute to the | |
| concurrency level. In other words, runnable CPU intensive | |
| work items will not prevent other work items in the same | |
| worker-pool from starting execution. This is useful for bound | |
| work items which are expected to hog CPU cycles so that their | |
| execution is regulated by the system scheduler. | |
| Although CPU intensive work items don't contribute to the | |
| concurrency level, start of their executions is still | |
| regulated by the concurrency management and runnable | |
| non-CPU-intensive work items can delay execution of CPU | |
| intensive work items. | |
| This flag is meaningless for unbound wq. | |
| Note that the flag ``WQ_NON_REENTRANT`` no longer exists as all | |
| workqueues are now non-reentrant - any work item is guaranteed to be | |
| executed by at most one worker system-wide at any given time. | |
| ``max_active`` | |
| -------------- | |
| ``@max_active`` determines the maximum number of execution contexts | |
| per CPU which can be assigned to the work items of a wq. For example, | |
| with ``@max_active`` of 16, at most 16 work items of the wq can be | |
| executing at the same time per CPU. | |
| Currently, for a bound wq, the maximum limit for ``@max_active`` is | |
| 512 and the default value used when 0 is specified is 256. For an | |
| unbound wq, the limit is higher of 512 and 4 * | |
| ``num_possible_cpus()``. These values are chosen sufficiently high | |
| such that they are not the limiting factor while providing protection | |
| in runaway cases. | |
| The number of active work items of a wq is usually regulated by the | |
| users of the wq, more specifically, by how many work items the users | |
| may queue at the same time. Unless there is a specific need for | |
| throttling the number of active work items, specifying '0' is | |
| recommended. | |
| Some users depend on the strict execution ordering of ST wq. The | |
| combination of ``@max_active`` of 1 and ``WQ_UNBOUND`` used to | |
| achieve this behavior. Work items on such wq were always queued to the | |
| unbound worker-pools and only one work item could be active at any given | |
| time thus achieving the same ordering property as ST wq. | |
| In the current implementation the above configuration only guarantees | |
| ST behavior within a given NUMA node. Instead ``alloc_ordered_queue()`` should | |
| be used to achieve system-wide ST behavior. | |
| Example Execution Scenarios | |
| =========================== | |
| The following example execution scenarios try to illustrate how cmwq | |
| behave under different configurations. | |
| Work items w0, w1, w2 are queued to a bound wq q0 on the same CPU. | |
| w0 burns CPU for 5ms then sleeps for 10ms then burns CPU for 5ms | |
| again before finishing. w1 and w2 burn CPU for 5ms then sleep for | |
| 10ms. | |
| Ignoring all other tasks, works and processing overhead, and assuming | |
| simple FIFO scheduling, the following is one highly simplified version | |
| of possible sequences of events with the original wq. :: | |
| TIME IN MSECS EVENT | |
| 0 w0 starts and burns CPU | |
| 5 w0 sleeps | |
| 15 w0 wakes up and burns CPU | |
| 20 w0 finishes | |
| 20 w1 starts and burns CPU | |
| 25 w1 sleeps | |
| 35 w1 wakes up and finishes | |
| 35 w2 starts and burns CPU | |
| 40 w2 sleeps | |
| 50 w2 wakes up and finishes | |
| And with cmwq with ``@max_active`` >= 3, :: | |
| TIME IN MSECS EVENT | |
| 0 w0 starts and burns CPU | |
| 5 w0 sleeps | |
| 5 w1 starts and burns CPU | |
| 10 w1 sleeps | |
| 10 w2 starts and burns CPU | |
| 15 w2 sleeps | |
| 15 w0 wakes up and burns CPU | |
| 20 w0 finishes | |
| 20 w1 wakes up and finishes | |
| 25 w2 wakes up and finishes | |
| If ``@max_active`` == 2, :: | |
| TIME IN MSECS EVENT | |
| 0 w0 starts and burns CPU | |
| 5 w0 sleeps | |
| 5 w1 starts and burns CPU | |
| 10 w1 sleeps | |
| 15 w0 wakes up and burns CPU | |
| 20 w0 finishes | |
| 20 w1 wakes up and finishes | |
| 20 w2 starts and burns CPU | |
| 25 w2 sleeps | |
| 35 w2 wakes up and finishes | |
| Now, let's assume w1 and w2 are queued to a different wq q1 which has | |
| ``WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE`` set, :: | |
| TIME IN MSECS EVENT | |
| 0 w0 starts and burns CPU | |
| 5 w0 sleeps | |
| 5 w1 and w2 start and burn CPU | |
| 10 w1 sleeps | |
| 15 w2 sleeps | |
| 15 w0 wakes up and burns CPU | |
| 20 w0 finishes | |
| 20 w1 wakes up and finishes | |
| 25 w2 wakes up and finishes | |
| Guidelines | |
| ========== | |
| * Do not forget to use ``WQ_MEM_RECLAIM`` if a wq may process work | |
| items which are used during memory reclaim. Each wq with | |
| ``WQ_MEM_RECLAIM`` set has an execution context reserved for it. If | |
| there is dependency among multiple work items used during memory | |
| reclaim, they should be queued to separate wq each with | |
| ``WQ_MEM_RECLAIM``. | |
| * Unless strict ordering is required, there is no need to use ST wq. | |
| * Unless there is a specific need, using 0 for @max_active is | |
| recommended. In most use cases, concurrency level usually stays | |
| well under the default limit. | |
| * A wq serves as a domain for forward progress guarantee | |
| (``WQ_MEM_RECLAIM``, flush and work item attributes. Work items | |
| which are not involved in memory reclaim and don't need to be | |
| flushed as a part of a group of work items, and don't require any | |
| special attribute, can use one of the system wq. There is no | |
| difference in execution characteristics between using a dedicated wq | |
| and a system wq. | |
| * Unless work items are expected to consume a huge amount of CPU | |
| cycles, using a bound wq is usually beneficial due to the increased | |
| level of locality in wq operations and work item execution. | |
| Debugging | |
| ========= | |
| Because the work functions are executed by generic worker threads | |
| there are a few tricks needed to shed some light on misbehaving | |
| workqueue users. | |
| Worker threads show up in the process list as: :: | |
| root 5671 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S 12:07 0:00 [kworker/0:1] | |
| root 5672 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S 12:07 0:00 [kworker/1:2] | |
| root 5673 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S 12:12 0:00 [kworker/0:0] | |
| root 5674 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S 12:13 0:00 [kworker/1:0] | |
| If kworkers are going crazy (using too much cpu), there are two types | |
| of possible problems: | |
| 1. Something being scheduled in rapid succession | |
| 2. A single work item that consumes lots of cpu cycles | |
| The first one can be tracked using tracing: :: | |
| $ echo workqueue:workqueue_queue_work > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/set_event | |
| $ cat /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_pipe > out.txt | |
| (wait a few secs) | |
| ^C | |
| If something is busy looping on work queueing, it would be dominating | |
| the output and the offender can be determined with the work item | |
| function. | |
| For the second type of problems it should be possible to just check | |
| the stack trace of the offending worker thread. :: | |
| $ cat /proc/THE_OFFENDING_KWORKER/stack | |
| The work item's function should be trivially visible in the stack | |
| trace. | |
| Kernel Inline Documentations Reference | |
| ====================================== | |
| .. kernel-doc:: include/linux/workqueue.h |