workqueue: Don't implicitly make UNBOUND workqueues w/ @max_active==1 ordered

5c0338c68706 ("workqueue: restore WQ_UNBOUND/max_active==1 to be ordered")
automoatically promoted UNBOUND workqueues w/ @max_active==1 to ordered
workqueues because UNBOUND workqueues w/ @max_active==1 used to be the way
to create ordered workqueues and the new NUMA support broke it. These
problems can be subtle and the fact that they can only trigger on NUMA
machines made them even more difficult to debug.

However, overloading the UNBOUND allocation interface this way creates other
issues. It's difficult to tell whether a given workqueue actually needs to
be ordered and users that legitimately want a min concurrency level wq
unexpectedly gets an ordered one instead. With planned UNBOUND workqueue
udpates to improve execution locality and more prevalence of chiplet designs
which can benefit from such improvements, this isn't a state we wanna be in
forever.

There aren't that many UNBOUND w/ @max_active==1 users in the tree and the
preceding patches audited all and converted them to
alloc_ordered_workqueue() as appropriate. This patch removes the implicit
promotion of UNBOUND w/ @max_active==1 workqueues to ordered ones.

v2: v1 patch incorrectly dropped !list_empty(&wq->pwqs) condition in
    apply_workqueue_attrs_locked() which spuriously triggers WARNING and
    fails workqueue creation. Fix it.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202304251050.45a5df1f-oliver.sang@intel.com

1 files changed, 4 insertions, 18 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 68c48489eab3..ecc775843bfa 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -5007,12 +5007,8 @@ static int apply_workqueue_attrs_locked(struct workqueue_struct *wq,
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	/* creating multiple pwqs breaks ordering guarantee */
-	if (!list_empty(&wq->pwqs)) {
-		if (WARN_ON(wq->flags & __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT))
-			return -EINVAL;
-
-		wq->flags &= ~__WQ_ORDERED;
-	}
+	if (!list_empty(&wq->pwqs) && WARN_ON(wq->flags & __WQ_ORDERED))
+		return -EINVAL;
 
 	ctx = apply_wqattrs_prepare(wq, attrs, wq_unbound_cpumask);
 	if (IS_ERR(ctx))
@@ -5333,15 +5329,6 @@ struct workqueue_struct *alloc_workqueue(const char *fmt,
 			return NULL;
 	}
 
-	/*
-	 * Unbound && max_active == 1 used to imply ordered, which is no longer
-	 * the case on many machines due to per-pod pools. While
-	 * alloc_ordered_workqueue() is the right way to create an ordered
-	 * workqueue, keep the previous behavior to avoid subtle breakages.
-	 */
-	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;
@@ -5564,14 +5551,13 @@ void workqueue_set_max_active(struct workqueue_struct *wq, int max_active)
 	if (WARN_ON(wq->flags & WQ_BH))
 		return;
 	/* disallow meddling with max_active for ordered workqueues */
-	if (WARN_ON(wq->flags & __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT))
+	if (WARN_ON(wq->flags & __WQ_ORDERED))
 		return;
 
 	max_active = wq_clamp_max_active(max_active, wq->flags, wq->name);
 
 	mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
 
-	wq->flags &= ~__WQ_ORDERED;
 	wq->saved_max_active = max_active;
 	if (wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND)
 		wq->saved_min_active = min(wq->saved_min_active, max_active);
@@ -7028,7 +7014,7 @@ int workqueue_sysfs_register(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
 	 * attributes breaks ordering guarantee.  Disallow exposing ordered
 	 * workqueues.
 	 */
-	if (WARN_ON(wq->flags & __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT))
+	if (WARN_ON(wq->flags & __WQ_ORDERED))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	wq->wq_dev = wq_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*wq_dev), GFP_KERNEL);