[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aKxr2QH-4Vi8jHTU@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 15:57:45 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] [Doc] Workqueue: WQ_UNBOUND doc upgraded
Le Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 03:29:06PM +0200, Marco Crivellari a écrit :
> Doc upgraded to mention future removal of WQ_UNBOUND.
>
> Suggested-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>
> ---
> Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst b/Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst
> index 165ca73e8351..c8ece1c38808 100644
> --- a/Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst
> @@ -206,6 +206,10 @@ resources, scheduled and executed.
> * Long running CPU intensive workloads which can be better
> managed by the system scheduler.
>
> + **Note:** This flag will be removed in the future and all the work
> + items that don't need to be bound to a specific CPU, should not
> + use this flag.
> +
I would introduce that later, once WQ_PERCPU is correctly added everywhere and
we can assume that no flag means unbound.
Thanks.
> ``WQ_FREEZABLE``
> A freezable wq participates in the freeze phase of the system
> suspend operations. Work items on the wq are drained and no
> --
> 2.50.1
>
--
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists