linux-kernel - Re: [patch net-next 16/18] mlxsw: coRE: Add mlxsw specific workqueue and use it for FDB notif. processing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160602143703.GI14868@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date:	Thu, 2 Jun 2016 10:37:03 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:	Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 16/18] mlxsw: coRE: Add mlxsw specific workqueue
 and use it for FDB notif. processing

(cc'ing linux-kernel)

Hello,

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:41:06AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 09:42:34PM CEST, bhaktipriya96@...il.com wrote:
> >Hi Jiri,
> >
> >I'm working on the workqueue project and I'm updating the legacy
> >workqueue interface users to use the new workqueue API.
> >
> >This patch uses create_workqueue which is deprecated and needs an
> >update.
> >
> >Your commit description says
> >"It makes sense to create separate workqueue just for mlxsw driver
> >in this case and do not pollute system_wq."
> >
> >I would like to inquire what "polluting system_wq" means.
> 
> As the number of queued items is much bigger than originally expected, I
> wanted to have a separate wq for our driver. I believe it makes sense.

Unless it can queue a very large number of concurrent work items and
thus requires explicit concurrency limit, using a dedicated wq or not
doesn't make any difference.  Sharing system_wq doesn't pollute it.
All workqueues share the same worker pools anyway.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun