On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 06:41:52PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]>
> Reported-by: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
> Reported-by: Alexei Potashnik <[email protected]>
> Fixes: 4c16bd327c74 ("workqueue: implement NUMA affinity for unbound
> workqueues")
> Cc: [email protected] # v3.10+
Applied to wq/for-4.13-fixes.
Thanks.
--
tejun
