From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5946C24729C for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2025 21:38:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749591484; cv=none; b=BEqvJDQ4QBofM+PFybNsr2RoOuUuri9ir/86Xp50FxbArTUlnBEKzP+6XfpteqYmjiHVvS/etMujyHMTzdE8g0uXih1pforGi2ApRchPChoheRmmjMGJltriKrpKJXs0r2oP6zeZwiSebQ6Osa22iXl9J0lDw+4FjnYNWFxuWeI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749591484; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pdhO4DMPIZII4BZaVvdEx5U9jIKTjh3FpPVXXtzfHg8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=NB6HZucTXwZiiBkEyz9UFsiPY1TyjV0V6bhyKlJGi/ROp3oVA3VuJicJSgVgKsgW/tWLZpYLPqf/N5nbk9QDCXkErR7GA+rzEPvpV71qf5scw89x66mM/hqb54Af6sulgosEuDypS2DRDJleXwb/N2bmnqLjUDOAF9aqElJSSIY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=J2IztQLO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="J2IztQLO" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C571AC4CEED; Tue, 10 Jun 2025 21:38:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1749591484; bh=pdhO4DMPIZII4BZaVvdEx5U9jIKTjh3FpPVXXtzfHg8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=J2IztQLO/MJJ6vt9VnbQE2w1iA6i9qdGvPGXkN/2O0xejaE3NRhEgWbPRSiKGA7LO Ex8Q9znR3kwb2ac+UquDrGldvaXHRVIi8oFBrVC9BgIXrgAcaUx3pVP2S7znXT9H4N 2cBgercJftsV1rjxZzDUXy/idG2A/NaLeO6pLHl0oFFsNIltJxlAvmmk8Cu8EUJRWF zgMpfFmjy8JO063/zhrTduKsgda3XIpgOumdKLngauhP+A06o/0eq4JCLuP7i8zuqM DeH62e6F3gClKBqVlWNQxqRQdqyXS/v2fTnuSPLGqZgZlm+bQN7JZ8fSr5sRLUxozo 5pyN6LBTSs/nQ== Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 11:38:01 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Marco Crivellari Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan , Thomas Gleixner , Frederic Weisbecker , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Workqueue: rename system workqueue and add WQ_PERCPU Message-ID: References: <20250609103535.780069-1-marco.crivellari@suse.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Hello, Marco. On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 10:34:15AM +0200, Marco Crivellari wrote: > >- Separate out patches to add the new flag and wq. Don't add the warnings > > yet. I'll commit these patches to a separate wq branch. > > Basically these means have 2 more patches, one for WQ_PERCPU (only the > new flag, like in the v1 let's say) and another patch that adds the wq(s). > > So, all the logic changes (also in __alloc_workqueue), pr_warn_once() will > stay in the other patch (that you will apply later); this is not only 1 patch, > following your next point. > > If I understood correctly, it makes sense to me. Yeah. > >- Split out patches by subsystems. I know this is tedious but think it'd > > still be worth doing. It doesn't have to be completely granular. e.g. We > > know that network changes go through a single tree, so all network changes > > can be in a single patch. Each patch can explain the workqueue changes and > > that the patch can be either routed through the subysstem which would > > require pulling from the above wq branch, or, as the default option, we'd > > be happy to route the patch through the workqueue tree. I can create a > > separate branch to collect the conversion patches that can go through wq > > tree. > > This impacts patch 3, so instead of 1 big patch, you are thinking of N patches, > in order to add WQ_PERCPU to the callers of subsystems first. > > So, something like: > - net/ > - mm/ > - fs/ > > Do you have something different in mind? No, that sounds fine. > >- After the next rc1 drops, I can apply the patches to add warnings to the > > -fixes branch and then send them to Linus. > > Sounds good. I think we're in agreement. Thanks. -- tejun