linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] gpio: cdev: replace use of system_wq with system_percpu

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACRpkdYkdhp_eHLP688gAwnrJppqkQn=RT_Lg4A+kd0uBqBBcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2025 23:59:59 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, 
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, 
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, 
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] gpio: cdev: replace use of system_wq with system_percpu_wq

On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 12:16 PM Marco Crivellari
<marco.crivellari@...e.com> wrote:

> Currently if a user enqueue a work item using schedule_delayed_work() the
> used wq is "system_wq" (per-cpu wq) while queue_delayed_work() use
> WORK_CPU_UNBOUND (used when a cpu is not specified). The same applies to
> schedule_work() that is using system_wq and queue_work(), that makes use
> again of WORK_CPU_UNBOUND.
>
> This lack of consistency cannot be addressed without refactoring the API.
>
> system_wq should be the per-cpu workqueue, yet in this name nothing makes
> that clear, so replace system_wq with system_percpu_wq.
>
> The old wq (system_wq) will be kept for a few release cycles.
>
> Suggested-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>

Looked over the similar changes to FS core etc. It makes sense.
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>

Yours,
Linus Walleij