Earlier commits in this series allow battery-powered systems to build
their kernels with the default-disabled CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y Kconfig option.
This Kconfig option causes call_rcu() to delay its callbacks in order
to batch them. This means that a given RCU grace period covers more
callbacks, thus reducing the number of grace periods, in turn reducing
the amount of energy consumed, which increases battery lifetime which
can be a very good thing. This is not a subtle effect: In some important
use cases, the battery lifetime is increased by more than 10%.
This CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y option is available only for CPUs that offload
callbacks, for example, CPUs mentioned in the rcu_nocbs kernel boot
parameter passed to kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y.
Delaying callbacks is normally not a problem because most callbacks do
nothing but free memory. If the system is short on memory, a shrinker
will kick all currently queued lazy callbacks out of their laziness,
thus freeing their memory in short order. Similarly, the rcu_barrier()
function, which blocks until all currently queued callbacks are invoked,
will also kick lazy callbacks, thus enabling rcu_barrier() to complete
in a timely manner.
However, there are some cases where laziness is not a good option.
For example, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu(), and blocks until
the newly queued callback is invoked. It would not be a good for
synchronize_rcu() to block for ten seconds, even on an idle system.
Therefore, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu_flush() instead of
call_rcu(). The arrival of a non-lazy call_rcu_flush() callback on a
given CPU kicks any lazy callbacks that might be already queued on that
CPU. After all, if there is going to be a grace period, all callbacks
might as well get full benefit from it.
Yes, this could be done the other way around by creating a
call_rcu_lazy(), but earlier experience with this approach and
feedback at the 2022 Linux Plumbers Conference shifted the approach
to call_rcu() being lazy with call_rcu_flush() for the few places
where laziness is inappropriate.
And another call_rcu() instance that cannot be lazy is the one
in queue_rcu_work(), given that callers to queue_rcu_work() are
not necessarily OK with long delays.
Therefore, make queue_rcu_work() use call_rcu_flush() in order to revert
to the old behavior.
Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit ca10d851b9ad0338c19e8e3089e24d565ebfffd7 ]
Commit 5c0338c68706 ("workqueue: restore WQ_UNBOUND/max_active==1
to be ordered") enabled implicit ordered attribute to be added to
WQ_UNBOUND workqueues with max_active of 1. This prevented the changing
of attributes to these workqueues leading to fix commit 0a94efb5acbb
("workqueue: implicit ordered attribute should be overridable").
However, workqueue_apply_unbound_cpumask() was not updated at that time.
So sysfs changes to wq_unbound_cpumask has no effect on WQ_UNBOUND
workqueues with implicit ordered attribute. Since not all WQ_UNBOUND
workqueues are visible on sysfs, we are not able to make all the
necessary cpumask changes even if we iterates all the workqueue cpumasks
in sysfs and changing them one by one.
Fix this problem by applying the corresponding change made
to apply_workqueue_attrs_locked() in the fix commit to
workqueue_apply_unbound_cpumask().
Fixes: 5c0338c68706 ("workqueue: restore WQ_UNBOUND/max_active==1 to be ordered")
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
