From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 6CE41350A10 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 19:24:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784229868; cv=none; b=mPCUk9Vs8OQvjrCiE+JwBGuQcKoiA0iAOHhpYDQD/eHW+9bcAPnImnvuk2FHmOgVK230X8cF8Aiuunk4XsT7KaPVuEtRroh9ykK6xHwjJAVIBvVODVilKnDfCpjfZk8h2xQSLpY+XY73JjbHgYgBRPwe92A15/mMIzASNTNvLWM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784229868; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yzOD8j7qVu/YJYKP6TL8E2ya6xYqE/swmqq84QBMI4M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=OYipGVBOARwSt8QPs2ZET6sf4MHxO2d+Jf8WhcThm7gePB0mPug2n8tisYq6Y+bUK4eysXIrFNxkk5DyfcCVoYa/gKHB/XXhPS3IMs8L8x8GI7xisjDNqH9vPIHe1VowrutocZTxwTDrpnnU5mnBACniOmIPQO3/DoXQcj307Dk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=iMXrgB2v; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="iMXrgB2v" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27A421F00A3A; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 19:24:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1784229867; bh=L2LN3/+b/bPtEXymhj9/OJmTMoxJb/rxLZbTYzvhaEk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=iMXrgB2vCcfqS6thhfa+5t/TrgaTHenppapKYgsPdjVxi4fzM/IGPAev4djNS9sR7 RymZ7+hEGzomkPfSHfXAjeVVh6smXwUIMf9BplHNaAlth0UmhkeRXQ+2VIeD3mGLdf cQnrCMAYx0dDO1r7Cn0ow4diGxyq5FZJoYX05pICBD9EyaLTmTl0n4IHR5HSyvMS6I BH6QZghCEZBrTMUmq36oLUPHt5ovLjKlrWWzYvwycUQt8nD54g6+vFs/En1sOg5tuI mmwbJsQTUekOEwymhBxIHGrXgMt5lM0lJU/N3kqT+ZFot8oV+oIQL+RL+BrnDOMuHn wWuA3+Oz1bWMw== Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 09:24:26 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Breno Leitao Cc: Lai Jiangshan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, marco.crivellari@suse.com, frederic@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Refactor the workqueue allocations Message-ID: References: <20260714-tejun1-v1-0-024d59241386@debian.org> 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 Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 09:22:50AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: ... > > 3) What end state are you aiming for? Keep WQ_PERCPU as a thin flag over > > unified internals (single install path, per-cpu accounting special-cased) > > with WQ_UNBOUND staying for now -- or something more radical (the flags gone > > entirely, percpu purely an affinity value)? > > Keeping WQ_PERCPU as a shorthand for specifying the percpu scope makes sense > to me. Oh, and please note that if a workqueue specifies WQ_PERCPU, it should be confined to strict cpu affinity mode. Thanks. -- tejun