[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <06b2f59c-3c96-9443-7a23-f1c957a41d9b@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 07:05:05 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Haakon Bugge <haakon.bugge@...cle.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
syzbot <syzbot+831661966588c802aae9@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
OFED mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com" <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] possible deadlock in worker_thread
On 2022/02/16 2:05, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 2/15/22 04:48, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> I do not want to do like
>>
>> - system_wq = alloc_workqueue("events", 0, 0);
>> + system_wq = alloc_workqueue("events", __WQ_SYSTEM_WIDE, 0);
>>
>> because the intent of this change is to ask developers to create their own WQs.
>
> I want more developers to use the system-wide workqueues since that reduces memory usage. That matters for embedded devices running Linux.
Reserving a kernel thread for WQ_MEM_RECLAIM WQ might consume some memory,
but I don't think that creating a !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM WQ consumes much memory.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists