linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Workqueue: replace system wq and change alloc

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: <CAAofZF7gEeKVWf_i3uCj=QPNpDXmunb30_6MqiXRHbb9wGHKCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:40:58 +0200
From: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, 
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Workqueue: replace system wq and change
 alloc_workqueue callers

On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 1:19 AM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 02:28:12PM +0200, Marco Crivellari wrote:
> > Sorry for another email.
> >
> > Another question / observation: I guess maintainers can't just pull
> > the changes and merge for the next release, if the workqueue changes
> > (e.g. changes in queue_work() etc) are not also merged, right?
> >
> > I received a reply here, in the meantime, in "Workqueue: fs: replace
> > use of system_wq and add WQ_PERCPU to alloc_workqueue users"
> > (https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg5811817.html).
>
> I can prepare a branch that fs can pull but aren't all the prerequisites
> already in the master branch from the last cycle?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun

Hello Tejun,

There is still the logic inside "include/linux/workqueue.h", in
queue_delayed_work() / mod_delayed_work() / queue_work().
Just the pr_warn_once() and the workqueue redirection.

These changes are introduced by 2 different patches, based on when the
two new wq(s) are replaced inside the code.

There are also changes inside  __alloc_workqueue(), always in this
series (when WQ_PERCPU is used), because they are the "general" (core)
changes.

If I remember correctly we decided to keep the prerequisites without
any more "logic".
As long as this series is merged before or anyhow in the same rc, I
think there are no problems; right?

Thank you!

-- 

Marco Crivellari

L3 Support Engineer, Technology & Product

marco.crivellari@...e.com