Commit 5c0338c6 authored by Tejun Heo's avatar Tejun Heo
Browse files

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 4c16bd32

 ("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: default avatarTejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Reported-by: default avatarChristoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Reported-by: default avatarAlexei Potashnik <alexei@purestorage.com>
Fixes: 4c16bd32 ("workqueue: implement NUMA affinity for unbound workqueues")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v3.10+
parent 74cbd96b
......@@ -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;
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment