From 61a0adbfaad70713c45964e48b72e5e5b6ef30b1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tejun Heo Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 18:41:52 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: restore WQ_UNBOUND/max_active==1 to be ordered commit 5c0338c68706be53b3dc472e4308961c36e4ece1 upstream. 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 Reported-by: Christoph Hellwig Reported-by: Alexei Potashnik Fixes: 4c16bd327c74 ("workqueue: implement NUMA affinity for unbound workqueues") Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- kernel/workqueue.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c index 479d840..e5335c2 100644 --- a/kernel/workqueue.c +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c @@ -3915,6 +3915,16 @@ 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; -- 2.7.4