[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <82715589-8b59-5cfd-a32f-1e57871327fe@os.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 17:19:01 +0100
From: Maksym Planeta <mplaneta@...inf.tu-dresden.de>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc: Zhou Wang <wangzhou1@...ilicon.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>,
Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: Remove WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE flag from unbound wq's
On 13/02/2020 16:36, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13 2020 at 9:18am -0500,
> Maksym Planeta <mplaneta@...inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote:
>
>> The documentation [1] says that WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE is "meaningless" for
>> unbound wq. I remove this flag from places where unbound queue is
>> allocated. This is supposed to improve code readability.
>>
>> 1. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/core-api/workqueue.html#flags
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maksym Planeta <mplaneta@...inf.tu-dresden.de>
>
> What the Documentation says aside, have you cross referenced with the
> code? And/or have you done benchmarks to verify no changes?
>
It seems so from the code. Although, I'm not 100% confident. I did not
run benchmarks, instead I relied that on the assumption that
documentation is correct.
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
--
Regards,
Maksym Planeta
Powered by blists - more mailing lists