linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers/greybus: 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: <CAAofZF7nYkJwW=e-iS0p+9eRVMNR9Pmf8kKLR560tgg5nqfaEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 16:15:09 +0100
From: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.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>, Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/greybus: add WQ_PERCPU to alloc_workqueue users

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 4:00 PM Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Please use just
>
>         greybus:
>
> as prefix.

I will do it, thanks. I think I saw a couple of commits with that
prefix, so I used
it. I could have looked better.

>
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 02:21:49PM +0100, Marco Crivellari wrote:
> > Currently if a user enqueues 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.
>
> Apart from the naming of the WORK_CPU_UNBOUND macro I don't see the
> inconsistency here. We queue on the local CPU as documented (unless the
> CPU is not in the wq_unbound cpumask for unbound workqueues).
>
> Note sure how explicitly marking percpu workqueues is going to change
> this either so this paragraph doesn't seem relevant for the change at
> hand.

That part is there only to give more context, but I can remove it from the log.
I can start directly mentioning the changes in the workqueue API.

> Fair enough, the default is about to be changed.

For now we're only making explicit if a workqueue is per-cpu or not.
But yes, in the future, this will change.

> > Suggested-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>
>
> With an updated commit message you can add my:
>
> Reviewed-by: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>

I will send the v2 changing the log and adding your tag.

Thanks!


-- 

Marco Crivellari

L3 Support Engineer, Technology & Product