linux-kernel - Re: btrfs thread_pool_size logic out of sync with workqueue

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

Message-ID: <aBEb3kjVKcqzNBov@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 08:35:10 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Junxuan Liao <ljx@...wisc.edu>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
	David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: btrfs thread_pool_size logic out of sync with workqueue

On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 01:28:46PM -0500, Junxuan Liao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/29/25 1:12 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > 5797b1c18919 ("workqueue: Implement system-wide nr_active enforcement for
> > unbound workqueues") turned max_active system-wide. The count is now split
> > across nodes proportional to the number of cpus each node has. This is still
> > a different behavior from before where max_active was applied per node, but
> > no behavior change on single node machines and the new behavior is easier to
> > work with.
> 
> Thanks! I missed that. workqueue.rst doesn't reflect the change though.

Yeah, I really should but patches welcome. :-)

Thanks.

-- 
tejun