linux-kernel - [PATCH] md/raid5: unset WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE for raid5 unbound 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20250601013702.64640-1-ryotkkr98@gmail.com>
Date: Sun,  1 Jun 2025 10:37:02 +0900
From: Ryo Takakura <ryotkkr98@...il.com>
To: song@...nel.org,
	yukuai3@...wei.com,
	tj@...nel.org
Cc: linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ryo Takakura <ryotkkr98@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH] md/raid5: unset WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE for raid5 unbound workqueue

When specified with WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE, the workqueue doesn't
participate in concurrency management. This behaviour is already
accounted for WQ_UNBOUND workqueues given that they are assigned
to their own worker threads.

Unset WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE as the use of flag has no effect when
used with WQ_UNBOUND.

Signed-off-by: Ryo Takakura <ryotkkr98@...il.com>
---

Hi!

My understanding is that unbound wqs are served by non concurrency
managed worker threads and is not tracked by wq_cpu_intensive_report(),
so this should have no change in behaviour.

Sincerely,
Ryo Takakura

---
 drivers/md/raid5.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
index 638938316..8f3b45161 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
@@ -9048,7 +9048,7 @@ static int __init raid5_init(void)
 	int ret;

 	raid5_wq = alloc_workqueue("raid5wq",
-		WQ_UNBOUND|WQ_MEM_RECLAIM|WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE|WQ_SYSFS, 0);
+		WQ_UNBOUND|WQ_MEM_RECLAIM|WQ_SYSFS, 0);
 	if (!raid5_wq)
 		return -ENOMEM;

-- 
2.34.1