linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Workqueue: rename system workqueue and add WQ

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: <aBoGskbRu0RyRXMF@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 14:55:14 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Workqueue: rename system workqueue and add WQ_PERCPU

Le Tue, May 06, 2025 at 12:10:18PM +0200, Marco Crivellari a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> > Can you please make a summary of the discussion here? Referring to old
> > thread is useful but it'd be nice to have the rationales laid out in the
> > patchset - why this is desirable, what is the transition plan and what are
> > the rationales for it? Also, please include a short summary in the patches.
> 
> Sure, thanks for the advice.
> 
> > Let's keep the old names for a release or two and trigger printk_once()
> > warnings about the renames. These are pretty widely used, so I think it
> > warrants a bit of extra effort.
> 
> Good, sounds fine.
> But I don't understand where printk_once() should be placed.
> Can you give me some further guidance?

So one possibility to achieve this is to not do a rename of system_wq
to system_percpu_wq but eventually keep system_wq around and create the
new system_percpu_wq. Convert all current users of system_wq to system_percpu_wq
and warn from queue_work() when system_wq is used.

I would personally prefer that we use WARN_ON_ONCE() so that this really
gets noticed. Tejun what do you think?

Thanks.

-- 
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs