[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZFvd8zcPq4ijSszM@google.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 11:09:55 -0700
From: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: jiangshanlai@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com, Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>,
Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi017@...il.com>,
Sharvari Harisangam <sharvari.harisangam@....com>,
Xinming Hu <huxinming820@...il.com>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] wifi: mwifiex: Use default @max_active for
workqueues
On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 03:50:21PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> These workqueues only host a single work item and thus doen't need explicit
> concurrency limit. Let's use the default @max_active. This doesn't cost
> anything and clearly expresses that @max_active doesn't matter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Cc: Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>
> Cc: Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi017@...il.com>
> Cc: Sharvari Harisangam <sharvari.harisangam@....com>
> Cc: Xinming Hu <huxinming820@...il.com>
> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
> Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
I'll admit, the workqueue documentation sounds a bit like "max_active ==
1 + WQ_UNBOUND" is what we want ("one work item [...] active at any
given time"), but that's more of my misunderstanding than anything --
each work item can only be active in a single context at any given time,
so that note is talking about distinct (i.e., more than 1) work items.
While I'm here: we're still debugging what's affecting WiFi performance
on some of our WiFi systems, but it's possible I'll be turning some of
these into struct kthread_worker instead. We can cross that bridge
(including potential conflicts) if/when we come to it though.
Thanks,
Brian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists