netdev - RE: [PATCH] iwlwifi: dvm: convert create_singlethread_workqueue() 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: <0BA3FCBA62E2DC44AF3030971E174FB32EA7CBB1@hasmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:48:36 +0000
From:	"Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC:	Eva Rachel Retuya <eraretuya@...il.com>,
	"outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com" 
	<outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com>,
	linuxwifi <linuxwifi@...el.com>,
	"kvalo@...eaurora.org" <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
	"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] iwlwifi: dvm: convert create_singlethread_workqueue()
 to alloc_workqueue()

> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 01:43:22PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 20:37 +0800, Eva Rachel Retuya wrote:
> > > Use alloc_workqueue() to allocate the workqueue instead of
> > > create_singlethread_workqueue() since the latter is deprecated and
> > > is scheduled for removal.
> >
> > Scheduled where?
> 
> They've been deprecated for years now.  I should note that in the header.
> 
> > >  static void iwl_setup_deferred_work(struct iwl_priv *priv)
> > >  {
> > > -	priv->workqueue = create_singlethread_workqueue(DRV_NAME);
> > > +	priv->workqueue = alloc_workqueue(DRV_NAME, WQ_HIGHPRI |
> > > WQ_UNBOUND |
> > > +					  WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 1);
> >
> > Seems like you should use alloc_ordered_workqueue() though? That also
> > gets you UNBOUND immediately, and the "1".
> 
> Right, this one should have been alloc_ordered_workqueue().
> 
> > I'm not really sure HIGHPRI is needed either.
> 
> So, no WQ_MEM_RECLAIM either then, I suppose?  What are the latency
> requirements here - what happens if a thermal management work gets
> delayed?
> 

This worker is not supposed to free memory, so no WQ_MEM_RECLAIM needed. The latency is not critical.