workqueue: fix ordered workqueues in NUMA setups

An ordered workqueue implements execution ordering by using single
pool_workqueue with max_active == 1.  On a given pool_workqueue, work
items are processed in FIFO order and limiting max_active to 1
enforces the queued work items to be processed one by one.

Unfortunately, 4c16bd327c ("workqueue: implement NUMA affinity for
unbound workqueues") accidentally broke this guarantee by applying
NUMA affinity to ordered workqueues too.  On NUMA setups, an ordered
workqueue would end up with separate pool_workqueues for different
nodes.  Each pool_workqueue still limits max_active to 1 but multiple
work items may be executed concurrently and out of order depending on
which node they are queued to.

Fix it by using dedicated ordered_wq_attrs[] when creating ordered
workqueues.  The new attrs match the unbound ones except that no_numa
is always set thus forcing all NUMA nodes to share the default
pool_workqueue.

While at it, add sanity check in workqueue creation path which
verifies that an ordered workqueues has only the default
pool_workqueue.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Reported-by: Libin <huawei.libin@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>

kernel/workqueue.c

@@ -305,6 +305,9 @@ static DEFINE_HASHTABLE(unbound_pool_hash, UNBOUND_POOL_HASH_ORDER);
 /* I: attributes used when instantiating standard unbound pools on demand */
 static struct workqueue_attrs *unbound_std_wq_attrs[NR_STD_WORKER_POOLS];
 
+/* I: attributes used when instantiating ordered pools on demand */
+static struct workqueue_attrs *ordered_wq_attrs[NR_STD_WORKER_POOLS];
+
 struct workqueue_struct *system_wq __read_mostly;
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(system_wq);
 struct workqueue_struct *system_highpri_wq __read_mostly;
@@ -4107,7 +4110,7 @@ out_unlock:
 static int alloc_and_link_pwqs(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
 {
 	bool highpri = wq->flags & WQ_HIGHPRI;
-	int cpu;
+	int cpu, ret;
 
 	if (!(wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND)) {
 		wq->cpu_pwqs = alloc_percpu(struct pool_workqueue);
@@ -4127,6 +4130,13 @@ static int alloc_and_link_pwqs(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
 			mutex_unlock(&wq->mutex);
 		}
 		return 0;
+	} else if (wq->flags & __WQ_ORDERED) {
+		ret = apply_workqueue_attrs(wq, ordered_wq_attrs[highpri]);
+		/* there should only be single pwq for ordering guarantee */
+		WARN(!ret && (wq->pwqs.next != &wq->dfl_pwq->pwqs_node ||
+			      wq->pwqs.prev != &wq->dfl_pwq->pwqs_node),
+		     "ordering guarantee broken for workqueue %s\n", wq->name);
+		return ret;
 	} else {
 		return apply_workqueue_attrs(wq, unbound_std_wq_attrs[highpri]);
 	}
@@ -5052,13 +5062,23 @@ static int __init init_workqueues(void)
 		}
 	}
 
-	/* create default unbound wq attrs */
+	/* create default unbound and ordered wq attrs */
 	for (i = 0; i < NR_STD_WORKER_POOLS; i++) {
 		struct workqueue_attrs *attrs;
 
 		BUG_ON(!(attrs = alloc_workqueue_attrs(GFP_KERNEL)));
 		attrs->nice = std_nice[i];
 		unbound_std_wq_attrs[i] = attrs;
+
+		/*
+		 * An ordered wq should have only one pwq as ordering is
+		 * guaranteed by max_active which is enforced by pwqs.
+		 * Turn off NUMA so that dfl_pwq is used for all nodes.
+		 */
+		BUG_ON(!(attrs = alloc_workqueue_attrs(GFP_KERNEL)));
+		attrs->nice = std_nice[i];
+		attrs->no_numa = true;
+		ordered_wq_attrs[i] = attrs;
 	}
 
 	system_wq = alloc_workqueue("events", 0, 0);