[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZdUBHQQEN5-9AHBe@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 14:44:29 -0500
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev, msnitzer@...hat.com, ignat@...udflare.com,
damien.lemoal@....com, bob.liu@...cle.com, houtao1@...wei.com,
peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
allen.lkml@...il.com, kernel-team@...a.com,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] dm-verity: Convert from tasklet to BH workqueue
On Wed, Jan 31 2024 at 7:19P -0500,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31 2024 at 7:04P -0500,
> Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Linus.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 03:19:01PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 13:32, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't know, so just did the dumb thing. If the caller always guarantees
> > > > that the work items are never queued at the same time, reusing is fine.
> > >
> > > So the reason I thought it would be a good cleanup to introduce that
> > > "atomic" workqueue thing (now "bh") was that this case literally has a
> > > switch between "use tasklets' or "use workqueues".
> > >
> > > So it's not even about "reusing" the workqueue, it's literally a
> > > matter of making it always just use workqueues, and the switch then
> > > becomes just *which* workqueue to use - system or bh.
> >
> > Yeah, that's how the dm-crypt got converted. The patch just before this one.
> > This one probably can be converted the same way. I don't see the work item
> > being re-initialized. It probably is better to initialize the work item
> > together with the enclosing struct and then just queue it when needed.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> > Mikulas, I couldn't decide what to do with the "try_verify_in_tasklet"
> > option and just decided to do the minimal thing hoping that someone more
> > familiar with the code can take over the actual conversion. How much of user
> > interface commitment is that? Should it be renamed or would it be better to
> > leave it be?
>
> cryptsetup did add support for it, so I think it worthwhile to
> preserve the option; but it'd be fine to have it just be a backward
> compatible alias for a more appropriately named option?
Hey Tejun,
I'm not sure where things stand with the 6.9 workqueue changes to add
BH workqueue. I had a look at your various branches and I'm not
seeing where you might have staged any conversion patches (like this
dm-verity one).
I just staged various unrelated dm-verity and dm-crypt 6.8 fixes from
Mikulas that I'll be sending to Linus later this week (for v6.8-rc6).
Those changes required rebasing 'dm-6.9' because of conflicts, here is
the dm-6.9 branch:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/log/?h=dm-6.9
So we'll definitely need to rebase your changes on dm-6.9 to convert
dm-crypt and dm-verity over to your BH workqueue. Are you OK with
doing that or would you prefer I merge some 6.9 workqueue branch that
you have into dm-6.9? And then Mikulas and I work to make the required
DM target conversion changes?
However you'd like to do it: please let me know where you have the
latest 6.9 code the adds BH workqueue (and if you have DM target
conversion code that reflects your latest).
Thanks,
Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists