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 4CFDF350A31 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2025 18:16:01 +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=1761761761; cv=none; b=A/t0/OuNHmfA3pWPdBSgjXdA1NJcgz08zv/Tgh3bwq0Wxd5ObePt4SYtQAMFZtuwiZnzYta28iB8cfyHjrZfGBx9Tx1n6FR9xo74XWBohHu4Tk7FDq5j4Fz2YmcOwjfJZ15RInjc5XPU6h54DgTouPV8dBYk0yDSifV4D/PQ1hc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761761761; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eLbccdj+72VhYU327uN0Zxnlm8keZTmMM2Y3v4EP+vs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=OF4JpalW4TCHufGO+nVdopjXwD3haw7pl7jzr/xFajW1V9KDEKJysIgMYIg6/hjegjp3G3VvAX+cLhh1P+Ta3lhgxO8tPGBJgAJHuhDY8eC34dlFpMF/a3hkSPVToP4bArfZFvjw39B9K/e+VDz6yhjc4vmsi7UcmPCam/gq7Vk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=T73DY/BJ; 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="T73DY/BJ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0FE21C4CEF7; Wed, 29 Oct 2025 18:16:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1761761761; bh=eLbccdj+72VhYU327uN0Zxnlm8keZTmMM2Y3v4EP+vs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=T73DY/BJfAkbXY6fKpZl/O9cj1+Su+EgbmJYRTf3U+uqURDEmiGf1Oqsk8ptDWNik EvbAWxgQmqn+hTHBuZwL5+1fsOL+Tpl5DydIwGt4kuNHgJkGHhQqSJYrZutMGfQQDV MD3G8dYmAIJcF+QZ/ew+pZey9uxQHLkEbnZLmWQyr2JCVwCVDjU1Wc5gFcXyLo+giJ vf4eM+Z3NETGYsc62FowhYsOQAhIoe46PgDcUhiTIgfaRbVN5UCWCaeoDjrfiOfEJM hEN/k006LPPMZsElT+TFsOn9KIp3TvJiwRfo+CGV9jzNcVw9c2VtDDgML77mWT+zZ9 gZ/f6/BEO5x+w== Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 08:16:00 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Matthew Brost Cc: Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= , intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, simona.vetter@ffwll.ch, pstanner@redhat.com, dakr@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] workqueue: Add an interface to taint workqueue lockdep with reclaim Message-ID: References: <20251021213952.746900-1-matthew.brost@intel.com> <20251021213952.746900-2-matthew.brost@intel.com> <2e1e9d6f-4f9e-49f7-90f0-6759c260701f@amd.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: On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 09:46:15AM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 05:06:46AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > > How about making it a WQ flag? > > That could work too. We want to enforce rules of drivers actually set > these flags setting passing workqueues to the DRM scheduler. Any > objection to adding helpers to the workqueue layer to fish the > information we'd like to enforce? Difficult to tell definitively without looking at the helpers but no objections to the general idea. Thanks. -- tejun