On 3/6/2024 6:56 AM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 10:15:44AM +0800, Z qiang wrote:
>>>
>>> synchronize_rcu() users have to be processed regardless
>>> of memory pressure so our private WQ needs to have at least
>>> one execution context what WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flag guarantees.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 6 +++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>>> index 475647620b12..59881a68dd26 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>>> @@ -1581,6 +1581,7 @@ static void rcu_sr_put_wait_head(struct llist_node *node)
>>> /* Disabled by default. */
>>> static int rcu_normal_wake_from_gp;
>>> module_param(rcu_normal_wake_from_gp, int, 0644);
>>> +static struct workqueue_struct *sync_wq;
>>>
>>> static void rcu_sr_normal_complete(struct llist_node *node)
>>> {
>>> @@ -1679,7 +1680,7 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup(void)
>>> * of outstanding users(if still left) and releasing wait-heads
>>> * added by rcu_sr_normal_gp_init() call.
>>> */
>>> - queue_work(system_highpri_wq, &rcu_state.srs_cleanup_work);
>>> + queue_work(sync_wq, &rcu_state.srs_cleanup_work);
>>> }
>>>
>>> /*
>>> @@ -5584,6 +5585,9 @@ void __init rcu_init(void)
>>> rcu_gp_wq = alloc_workqueue("rcu_gp", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
>>> WARN_ON(!rcu_gp_wq);
>>>
>>> + sync_wq = alloc_workqueue("sync_wq", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
>>
>> Why was WQ_HIGHPRI removed?
>>
> I would like to check perf. figures with it and send out it as a
> separate patch if it is worth it.
I guess one thing to note is that there are also other RCU-related WQ which have
WQ_MEM_RECLAIM but not WQ_HIGHPRI (such as for expedited RCU, at least some
configs). So for consistency, this makes sense to me.
Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx).
thanks,
- Joel
