linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firewire: core: add WQ_PERCPU to 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAAofZF7wY9OYNSJyLsWSPczPZvfPHGtRomryTsbONQ--pOy=-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 11:04:31 +0100
From: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>
To: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firewire: core: add WQ_PERCPU to alloc_workqueue users

On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 3:54 AM Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@...amocchi.jp> wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/drivers/firewire/core-transaction.c b/drivers/firewire/core-transaction.c
> > index c65f491c54d0..c15dbe882cbe 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firewire/core-transaction.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firewire/core-transaction.c
> > @@ -1437,7 +1437,8 @@ static int __init fw_core_init(void)
> >  {
> >       int ret;
> >
> > -     fw_workqueue = alloc_workqueue("firewire", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
> > +     fw_workqueue = alloc_workqueue("firewire", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_PERCPU,
> > +                                    0);
> >       if (!fw_workqueue)
> >               return -ENOMEM;
>
> As far as I know, there is no specific reason to use per-cpu workqueue
> for this purpose in this subsystem. I believe that using unbound workqueue
> would be more beneficial, since the workqueue users just operate chained
> 1394 OHCI DMA descriptor over system memory for asynchronous
> communication.
>
> Would it be acceptable for you to add WQ_UNBOUND flag to the workqueue?
> If so, I can prepare a patch for the next merge window.

Hi Takashi,

Yes looking at the code it makes sense to have this workqueue unbound.

If you want, it is not a problem for me to send a v2 with the change,
let me know.

Thanks!

-- 

Marco Crivellari

L3 Support Engineer, Technology & Product