| ==================================== |
| 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. |
| |
| |
| ``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. |
| |
| |
| Monitoring |
| ========== |
| |
| Use tools/workqueue/wq_monitor.py to monitor workqueue operations: :: |
| |
| $ tools/workqueue/wq_monitor.py events |
| total infl CPUtime CPUhog CMwake mayday rescued |
| events 18545 0 6.1 0 5 - - |
| events_highpri 8 0 0.0 0 0 - - |
| events_long 3 0 0.0 0 0 - - |
| events_unbound 38306 0 0.1 - - - - |
| events_freezable 0 0 0.0 0 0 - - |
| events_power_efficient 29598 0 0.2 0 0 - - |
| events_freezable_power_ 10 0 0.0 0 0 - - |
| sock_diag_events 0 0 0.0 0 0 - - |
| |
| total infl CPUtime CPUhog CMwake mayday rescued |
| events 18548 0 6.1 0 5 - - |
| events_highpri 8 0 0.0 0 0 - - |
| events_long 3 0 0.0 0 0 - - |
| events_unbound 38322 0 0.1 - - - - |
| events_freezable 0 0 0.0 0 0 - - |
| events_power_efficient 29603 0 0.2 0 0 - - |
| events_freezable_power_ 10 0 0.0 0 0 - - |
| sock_diag_events 0 0 0.0 0 0 - - |
| |
| ... |
| |
| See the command's help message for more info. |
| |
| |
| 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/tracing/set_event |
| $ cat /sys/kernel/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. |
| |
| |
| Non-reentrance Conditions |
| ========================= |
| |
| Workqueue guarantees that a work item cannot be re-entrant if the following |
| conditions hold after a work item gets queued: |
| |
| 1. The work function hasn't been changed. |
| 2. No one queues the work item to another workqueue. |
| 3. The work item hasn't been reinitiated. |
| |
| In other words, if the above conditions hold, the work item is guaranteed to be |
| executed by at most one worker system-wide at any given time. |
| |
| Note that requeuing the work item (to the same queue) in the self function |
| doesn't break these conditions, so it's safe to do. Otherwise, caution is |
| required when breaking the conditions inside a work function. |
| |
| |
| Kernel Inline Documentations Reference |
| ====================================== |
| |
| .. kernel-doc:: include/linux/workqueue.h |
| |
| .. kernel-doc:: kernel/workqueue.c |