Hi!

Below is a summary of a discussion about the Workqueue API and cpu isolation
considerations. Details and more information are available here:

        "workqueue: Always use wq_select_unbound_cpu() for WORK_CPU_UNBOUND."
        https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250221112003.1dSuoGyc@linutronix.de/

=== Current situation: problems ===

Let's consider a nohz_full system with isolated CPUs: wq_unbound_cpumask is
set to the housekeeping CPUs, for !WQ_UNBOUND the local CPU is selected.

This leads to different scenarios if a work item is scheduled on an isolated
CPU where "delay" value is 0 or greater then 0:
        schedule_delayed_work(, 0);

This will be handled by __queue_work() that will queue the work item on the
current local (isolated) CPU, while:

        schedule_delayed_work(, 1);

Will move the timer on an housekeeping CPU, and schedule the work there.

Currently if a user enqueue a work item using schedule_delayed_work() the
used wq is "system_wq" (per-cpu wq) while queue_delayed_work() use
WORK_CPU_UNBOUND (used when a cpu is not specified). The same applies to
schedule_work() that is using system_wq and queue_work(), that makes use
again of WORK_CPU_UNBOUND.

This lack of consistentcy cannot be addressed without refactoring the API.

=== Plan and future plans ===

This patchset is the first stone on a refactoring needed in order to
address the points aforementioned; it will have a positive impact also
on the cpu isolation, in the long term, moving away percpu workqueue in
favor to an unbound model.

These are the main steps:
1)  API refactoring (that this patch is introducing)
    -   Make more clear and uniform the system wq names, both per-cpu and
        unbound. This to avoid any possible confusion on what should be
        used.

    -   Introduction of WQ_PERCPU: this flag is the complement of WQ_UNBOUND,
        introduced in this patchset and used on all the callers that are not
        currently using WQ_UNBOUND.

        WQ_UNBOUND will be removed in a future release cycle.

        Most users don't need to be per-cpu, because they don't have
        locality requirements, because of that, a next future step will be
        make "unbound" the default behavior.

2)  Check who really needs to be per-cpu
    -   Remove the WQ_PERCPU flag when is not strictly required.

3)  Add a new API (prefer local cpu)
    -   There are users that don't require a local execution, like mentioned
        above; despite that, local execution yeld to performance gain.

        This new API will prefer the local execution, without requiring it.

=== Introduced Changes by this series ===

1) [P 1] add WQ_PERCPU to remaining alloc_workqueue() users

        Every alloc_workqueue() caller should use one among WQ_PERCPU or
        WQ_UNBOUND. This is actually enforced warning if both or none of them
        are present at the same time.

        WQ_UNBOUND will be removed in a next release cycle.

=== For Maintainers ===

There are prerequisites for this series, already merged in the master branch.
The commits are:

128ea9f6ccfb6960293ae4212f4f97165e42222d ("workqueue: Add system_percpu_wq and
system_dfl_wq")

930c2ea566aff59e962c50b2421d5fcc3b98b8be ("workqueue: Add new WQ_PERCPU flag")


Thanks!

Marco Crivellari (1):
  KVM: WQ_PERCPU added to alloc_workqueue users

 virt/kvm/eventfd.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

-- 
2.51.0

On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 11:11:38 +0200, Marco Crivellari wrote:
> Below is a summary of a discussion about the Workqueue API and cpu isolation
> considerations. Details and more information are available here:
> 
>         "workqueue: Always use wq_select_unbound_cpu() for WORK_CPU_UNBOUND."
>         https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250221112003.1dSuoGyc@linutronix.de/
> 
> === Current situation: problems ===
> 
> [...]

Applied to kvm-x86 generic, with a rewritten changelog to tailor it to KVM.

Thanks!

[1/1] KVM: Explicitly allocate/setup irqfd cleanup as per-CPU workqueue
      https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/9259607ec710

--
https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/tree/next

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 8:02 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> Applied to kvm-x86 generic, with a rewritten changelog to tailor it to KVM.
>
> Thanks!
>
> [1/1] KVM: Explicitly allocate/setup irqfd cleanup as per-CPU workqueue
>       https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/9259607ec710


Many thanks!

-- 

Marco Crivellari

L3 Support Engineer, Technology & Product