[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aAAOwfmi-RcCtA6W@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 10:10:41 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>,
Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: rust: add creation of workqueues
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 10:08:35PM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
...
> > This should be pretty cheap and we can probably enable this for everyone,
> > but if the overhead is noticeable, this can be an optional behavior
> > depending on a workqueue flag.
>
> My only concern is that we're executing work items *before* the
> deadline they specified. There could be work items that assume this
> doesn't happen? But maybe it's okay. Otherwise, what you suggest seems
> reasonable enough to me.
That's already what flush_delayed_work() does, so I don't think it'd be too
surprising. Alternatively, we can go for canceling on draining/destruction
but that'd be more surprising I think. As long as the behavior is documented
clearly, I don't see problems with running and flushing them.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists