| ========= | |
| Workqueue | |
| ========= | |
| :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 Concurrency Managed Workqueue? | |
| ================================== | |
| 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. | |
| A work item can be executed in either a thread or the BH (softirq) context. | |
| For threaded workqueues, special purpose threads, called [k]workers, 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 | |
| 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. | |
| BH workqueues use the same framework. However, as there can only be one | |
| concurrent execution context, there's no need to worry about concurrency. | |
| Each per-CPU BH worker pool contains only one pseudo worker which represents | |
| the BH execution context. A BH workqueue can be considered a convenience | |
| interface to softirq. | |
| 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 thread 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_BH`` | |
| BH workqueues can be considered a convenience interface to softirq. BH | |
| workqueues are always per-CPU and all BH work items are executed in the | |
| queueing CPU's softirq context in the queueing order. | |
| All BH workqueues must have 0 ``max_active`` and ``WQ_HIGHPRI`` is the | |
| only allowed additional flag. | |
| BH work items cannot sleep. All other features such as delayed queueing, | |
| flushing and canceling are supported. | |
| ``WQ_PERCPU`` | |
| Work items queued to a per-cpu wq are bound to a specific CPU. | |
| This flag is the right choice when cpu locality is important. | |
| This flag is the complement of ``WQ_UNBOUND``. | |
| ``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. This is always a per-CPU attribute, even for | |
| unbound workqueues. | |
| The maximum limit for ``@max_active`` is 2048 and the default value used | |
| when 0 is specified is 1024. 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 strict execution ordering where only one work item | |
| is in flight at any given time and the work items are processed in | |
| queueing order. While the combination of ``@max_active`` of 1 and | |
| ``WQ_UNBOUND`` used to achieve this behavior, this is no longer the | |
| case. Use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead. | |
| 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. | |
| Note: If something may generate more than @max_active outstanding | |
| work items (do stress test your producers), it may saturate a system | |
| wq and potentially lead to deadlock. It should utilize its own | |
| dedicated workqueue rather than the 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. | |
| Affinity Scopes | |
| =============== | |
| An unbound workqueue groups CPUs according to its affinity scope to improve | |
| cache locality. For example, if a workqueue is using the default affinity | |
| scope of "cache_shard", it will group CPUs into sub-LLC shards. A work item | |
| queued on the workqueue will be assigned to a worker on one of the CPUs | |
| within the same shard as the issuing CPU. | |
| Once started, the worker may or may not be allowed to move outside the scope | |
| depending on the ``affinity_strict`` setting of the scope. | |
| Workqueue currently supports the following affinity scopes. | |
| ``default`` | |
| Use the scope in module parameter ``workqueue.default_affinity_scope`` | |
| which is always set to one of the scopes below. | |
| ``cpu`` | |
| CPUs are not grouped. A work item issued on one CPU is processed by a | |
| worker on the same CPU. This makes unbound workqueues behave as per-cpu | |
| workqueues without concurrency management. | |
| ``smt`` | |
| CPUs are grouped according to SMT boundaries. This usually means that the | |
| logical threads of each physical CPU core are grouped together. | |
| ``cache`` | |
| CPUs are grouped according to cache boundaries. Which specific cache | |
| boundary is used is determined by the arch code. L3 is used in a lot of | |
| cases. | |
| ``cache_shard`` | |
| CPUs are grouped into sub-LLC shards of at most ``wq_cache_shard_size`` | |
| cores (default 8, tunable via the ``workqueue.cache_shard_size`` boot | |
| parameter). Shards are always split on core (SMT group) boundaries. | |
| This is the default affinity scope. | |
| ``numa`` | |
| CPUs are grouped according to NUMA boundaries. | |
| ``system`` | |
| All CPUs are put in the same group. Workqueue makes no effort to process a | |
| work item on a CPU close to the issuing CPU. | |
| The default affinity scope can be changed with the module parameter | |
| ``workqueue.default_affinity_scope`` and a specific workqueue's affinity | |
| scope can be changed using ``apply_workqueue_attrs()``. | |
| If ``WQ_SYSFS`` is set, the workqueue will have the following affinity scope | |
| related interface files under its ``/sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/WQ_NAME/`` | |
| directory. | |
| ``affinity_scope`` | |
| Read to see the current affinity scope. Write to change. | |
| When default is the current scope, reading this file will also show the | |
| current effective scope in parentheses, for example, ``default (cache)``. | |
| ``affinity_strict`` | |
| 0 by default indicating that affinity scopes are not strict. When a work | |
| item starts execution, workqueue makes a best-effort attempt to ensure | |
| that the worker is inside its affinity scope, which is called | |
| repatriation. Once started, the scheduler is free to move the worker | |
| anywhere in the system as it sees fit. This enables benefiting from scope | |
| locality while still being able to utilize other CPUs if necessary and | |
| available. | |
| If set to 1, all workers of the scope are guaranteed always to be in the | |
| scope. This may be useful when crossing affinity scopes has other | |
| implications, for example, in terms of power consumption or workload | |
| isolation. Strict NUMA scope can also be used to match the workqueue | |
| behavior of older kernels. | |
| Affinity Scopes and Performance | |
| =============================== | |
| It'd be ideal if an unbound workqueue's behavior is optimal for vast | |
| majority of use cases without further tuning. Unfortunately, in the current | |
| kernel, there exists a pronounced trade-off between locality and utilization | |
| necessitating explicit configurations when workqueues are heavily used. | |
| Higher locality leads to higher efficiency where more work is performed for | |
| the same number of consumed CPU cycles. However, higher locality may also | |
| cause lower overall system utilization if the work items are not spread | |
| enough across the affinity scopes by the issuers. The following performance | |
| testing with dm-crypt clearly illustrates this trade-off. | |
| The tests are run on a CPU with 12-cores/24-threads split across four L3 | |
| caches (AMD Ryzen 9 3900x). CPU clock boost is turned off for consistency. | |
| ``/dev/dm-0`` is a dm-crypt device created on NVME SSD (Samsung 990 PRO) and | |
| opened with ``cryptsetup`` with default settings. | |
| Scenario 1: Enough issuers and work spread across the machine | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| The command used: :: | |
| $ fio --filename=/dev/dm-0 --direct=1 --rw=randrw --bs=32k --ioengine=libaio \ | |
| --iodepth=64 --runtime=60 --numjobs=24 --time_based --group_reporting \ | |
| --name=iops-test-job --verify=sha512 | |
| There are 24 issuers, each issuing 64 IOs concurrently. ``--verify=sha512`` | |
| makes ``fio`` generate and read back the content each time which makes | |
| execution locality matter between the issuer and ``kcryptd``. The following | |
| are the read bandwidths and CPU utilizations depending on different affinity | |
| scope settings on ``kcryptd`` measured over five runs. Bandwidths are in | |
| MiBps, and CPU util in percents. | |
| .. list-table:: | |
| :widths: 16 20 20 | |
| :header-rows: 1 | |
| * - Affinity | |
| - Bandwidth (MiBps) | |
| - CPU util (%) | |
| * - system | |
| - 1159.40 ±1.34 | |
| - 99.31 ±0.02 | |
| * - cache | |
| - 1166.40 ±0.89 | |
| - 99.34 ±0.01 | |
| * - cache (strict) | |
| - 1166.00 ±0.71 | |
| - 99.35 ±0.01 | |
| With enough issuers spread across the system, there is no downside to | |
| "cache", strict or otherwise. All three configurations saturate the whole | |
| machine but the cache-affine ones outperform by 0.6% thanks to improved | |
| locality. | |
| Scenario 2: Fewer issuers, enough work for saturation | |
| ----------------------------------------------------- | |
| The command used: :: | |
| $ fio --filename=/dev/dm-0 --direct=1 --rw=randrw --bs=32k \ | |
| --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=64 --runtime=60 --numjobs=8 \ | |
| --time_based --group_reporting --name=iops-test-job --verify=sha512 | |
| The only difference from the previous scenario is ``--numjobs=8``. There are | |
| a third of the issuers but is still enough total work to saturate the | |
| system. | |
| .. list-table:: | |
| :widths: 16 20 20 | |
| :header-rows: 1 | |
| * - Affinity | |
| - Bandwidth (MiBps) | |
| - CPU util (%) | |
| * - system | |
| - 1155.40 ±0.89 | |
| - 97.41 ±0.05 | |
| * - cache | |
| - 1154.40 ±1.14 | |
| - 96.15 ±0.09 | |
| * - cache (strict) | |
| - 1112.00 ±4.64 | |
| - 93.26 ±0.35 | |
| This is more than enough work to saturate the system. Both "system" and | |
| "cache" are nearly saturating the machine but not fully. "cache" is using | |
| less CPU but the better efficiency puts it at the same bandwidth as | |
| "system". | |
| Eight issuers moving around over four L3 cache scope still allow "cache | |
| (strict)" to mostly saturate the machine but the loss of work conservation | |
| is now starting to hurt with 3.7% bandwidth loss. | |
| Scenario 3: Even fewer issuers, not enough work to saturate | |
| ----------------------------------------------------------- | |
| The command used: :: | |
| $ fio --filename=/dev/dm-0 --direct=1 --rw=randrw --bs=32k \ | |
| --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=64 --runtime=60 --numjobs=4 \ | |
| --time_based --group_reporting --name=iops-test-job --verify=sha512 | |
| Again, the only difference is ``--numjobs=4``. With the number of issuers | |
| reduced to four, there now isn't enough work to saturate the whole system | |
| and the bandwidth becomes dependent on completion latencies. | |
| .. list-table:: | |
| :widths: 16 20 20 | |
| :header-rows: 1 | |
| * - Affinity | |
| - Bandwidth (MiBps) | |
| - CPU util (%) | |
| * - system | |
| - 993.60 ±1.82 | |
| - 75.49 ±0.06 | |
| * - cache | |
| - 973.40 ±1.52 | |
| - 74.90 ±0.07 | |
| * - cache (strict) | |
| - 828.20 ±4.49 | |
| - 66.84 ±0.29 | |
| Now, the tradeoff between locality and utilization is clearer. "cache" shows | |
| 2% bandwidth loss compared to "system" and "cache (struct)" whopping 20%. | |
| Conclusion and Recommendations | |
| ------------------------------ | |
| In the above experiments, the efficiency advantage of the "cache" affinity | |
| scope over "system" is, while consistent and noticeable, small. However, the | |
| impact is dependent on the distances between the scopes and may be more | |
| pronounced in processors with more complex topologies. | |
| While the loss of work-conservation in certain scenarios hurts, it is a lot | |
| better than "cache (strict)" and maximizing workqueue utilization is | |
| unlikely to be the common case anyway. As such, "cache" is the default | |
| affinity scope for unbound pools. | |
| * As there is no one option which is great for most cases, workqueue usages | |
| that may consume a significant amount of CPU are recommended to configure | |
| the workqueues using ``apply_workqueue_attrs()`` and/or enable | |
| ``WQ_SYSFS``. | |
| * An unbound workqueue with strict "cpu" affinity scope behaves the same as | |
| ``WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE`` per-cpu workqueue. There is no real advanage to the | |
| latter and an unbound workqueue provides a lot more flexibility. | |
| * Affinity scopes are introduced in Linux v6.5. To emulate the previous | |
| behavior, use strict "numa" affinity scope. | |
| * The loss of work-conservation in non-strict affinity scopes is likely | |
| originating from the scheduler. There is no theoretical reason why the | |
| kernel wouldn't be able to do the right thing and maintain | |
| work-conservation in most cases. As such, it is possible that future | |
| scheduler improvements may make most of these tunables unnecessary. | |
| Examining Configuration | |
| ======================= | |
| Use tools/workqueue/wq_dump.py to examine unbound CPU affinity | |
| configuration, worker pools and how workqueues map to the pools: :: | |
| $ tools/workqueue/wq_dump.py | |
| Affinity Scopes | |
| =============== | |
| wq_unbound_cpumask=0000000f | |
| CPU | |
| nr_pods 4 | |
| pod_cpus [0]=00000001 [1]=00000002 [2]=00000004 [3]=00000008 | |
| pod_node [0]=0 [1]=0 [2]=1 [3]=1 | |
| cpu_pod [0]=0 [1]=1 [2]=2 [3]=3 | |
| SMT | |
| nr_pods 4 | |
| pod_cpus [0]=00000001 [1]=00000002 [2]=00000004 [3]=00000008 | |
| pod_node [0]=0 [1]=0 [2]=1 [3]=1 | |
| cpu_pod [0]=0 [1]=1 [2]=2 [3]=3 | |
| CACHE (default) | |
| nr_pods 2 | |
| pod_cpus [0]=00000003 [1]=0000000c | |
| pod_node [0]=0 [1]=1 | |
| cpu_pod [0]=0 [1]=0 [2]=1 [3]=1 | |
| NUMA | |
| nr_pods 2 | |
| pod_cpus [0]=00000003 [1]=0000000c | |
| pod_node [0]=0 [1]=1 | |
| cpu_pod [0]=0 [1]=0 [2]=1 [3]=1 | |
| SYSTEM | |
| nr_pods 1 | |
| pod_cpus [0]=0000000f | |
| pod_node [0]=-1 | |
| cpu_pod [0]=0 [1]=0 [2]=0 [3]=0 | |
| Worker Pools | |
| ============ | |
| pool[00] ref= 1 nice= 0 idle/workers= 4/ 4 cpu= 0 | |
| pool[01] ref= 1 nice=-20 idle/workers= 2/ 2 cpu= 0 | |
| pool[02] ref= 1 nice= 0 idle/workers= 4/ 4 cpu= 1 | |
| pool[03] ref= 1 nice=-20 idle/workers= 2/ 2 cpu= 1 | |
| pool[04] ref= 1 nice= 0 idle/workers= 4/ 4 cpu= 2 | |
| pool[05] ref= 1 nice=-20 idle/workers= 2/ 2 cpu= 2 | |
| pool[06] ref= 1 nice= 0 idle/workers= 3/ 3 cpu= 3 | |
| pool[07] ref= 1 nice=-20 idle/workers= 2/ 2 cpu= 3 | |
| pool[08] ref=42 nice= 0 idle/workers= 6/ 6 cpus=0000000f | |
| pool[09] ref=28 nice= 0 idle/workers= 3/ 3 cpus=00000003 | |
| pool[10] ref=28 nice= 0 idle/workers= 17/ 17 cpus=0000000c | |
| pool[11] ref= 1 nice=-20 idle/workers= 1/ 1 cpus=0000000f | |
| pool[12] ref= 2 nice=-20 idle/workers= 1/ 1 cpus=00000003 | |
| pool[13] ref= 2 nice=-20 idle/workers= 1/ 1 cpus=0000000c | |
| Workqueue CPU -> pool | |
| ===================== | |
| [ workqueue \ CPU 0 1 2 3 dfl] | |
| events percpu 0 2 4 6 | |
| events_highpri percpu 1 3 5 7 | |
| events_long percpu 0 2 4 6 | |
| events_unbound unbound 9 9 10 10 8 | |
| events_freezable percpu 0 2 4 6 | |
| events_power_efficient percpu 0 2 4 6 | |
| events_freezable_pwr_ef percpu 0 2 4 6 | |
| rcu_gp percpu 0 2 4 6 | |
| rcu_par_gp percpu 0 2 4 6 | |
| slub_flushwq percpu 0 2 4 6 | |
| netns ordered 8 8 8 8 8 | |
| ... | |
| See the command's help message for more info. | |
| Monitoring | |
| ========== | |
| Use tools/workqueue/wq_monitor.py to monitor workqueue operations: :: | |
| $ tools/workqueue/wq_monitor.py events | |
| total infl CPUtime CPUhog CMW/RPR 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 - 7 - - | |
| events_freezable 0 0 0.0 0 0 - - | |
| events_power_efficient 29598 0 0.2 0 0 - - | |
| events_freezable_pwr_ef 10 0 0.0 0 0 - - | |
| sock_diag_events 0 0 0.0 0 0 - - | |
| total infl CPUtime CPUhog CMW/RPR 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 - 7 - - | |
| events_freezable 0 0 0.0 0 0 - - | |
| events_power_efficient 29603 0 0.2 0 0 - - | |
| events_freezable_pwr_ef 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 |