summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/kernel
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorTejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>2017-07-18 18:41:52 -0400
committerTejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>2017-07-19 11:24:19 -0400
commit5c0338c68706be53b3dc472e4308961c36e4ece1 (patch)
tree306525a446f682b5479f020c7976729bdae52139 /kernel
parent74cbd96bc2e00f5daa805e2ebf49e998f7045062 (diff)
downloadlinux-5c0338c68706be53b3dc472e4308961c36e4ece1.tar.bz2
workqueue: restore WQ_UNBOUND/max_active==1 to be ordered
The combination of WQ_UNBOUND and max_active == 1 used to imply ordered execution. After NUMA affinity 4c16bd327c74 ("workqueue: implement NUMA affinity for unbound workqueues"), this is no longer true due to per-node worker pools. While the right way to create an ordered workqueue is alloc_ordered_workqueue(), the documentation has been misleading for a long time and people do use WQ_UNBOUND and max_active == 1 for ordered workqueues which can lead to subtle bugs which are very difficult to trigger. It's unlikely that we'd see noticeable performance impact by enforcing ordering on WQ_UNBOUND / max_active == 1 workqueues. Let's automatically set __WQ_ORDERED for those workqueues. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Reported-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> Reported-by: Alexei Potashnik <alexei@purestorage.com> Fixes: 4c16bd327c74 ("workqueue: implement NUMA affinity for unbound workqueues") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v3.10+
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel')
-rw-r--r--kernel/workqueue.c10
1 files changed, 10 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index a86688fabc55..abe4a4971c24 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -3929,6 +3929,16 @@ struct workqueue_struct *__alloc_workqueue_key(const char *fmt,
struct workqueue_struct *wq;
struct pool_workqueue *pwq;
+ /*
+ * Unbound && max_active == 1 used to imply ordered, which is no
+ * longer the case on NUMA machines due to per-node pools. While
+ * alloc_ordered_workqueue() is the right way to create an ordered
+ * workqueue, keep the previous behavior to avoid subtle breakages
+ * on NUMA.
+ */
+ if ((flags & WQ_UNBOUND) && max_active == 1)
+ flags |= __WQ_ORDERED;
+
/* see the comment above the definition of WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT */
if ((flags & WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT) && wq_power_efficient)
flags |= WQ_UNBOUND;