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 36C8C3438A7 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2026 19:10:14 +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=1786907416; cv=none; b=G8Ikv7amgdfVBiwoH483PPGLQmDwL3/IFsDt1vXIeSCJulITfhgSj2xODZzfiRqBqkNS8YdDkGhrLbImNRXZr5MlDc1XzXM9n6U8lo8UCNtBnn/PyVvr2DIkKPTV81pvkgP3a9kxDhX9caQXNF6V0ktMlJHG4gLNUKScopS5M5k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786907416; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WGwnAZylW41QkfBB2EneUEm2/EU7HyYb2KgwIqn1x5k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Ed+9PoBsOLgZrDCiI0Q3kuTT8zI780hpCgjH57Iy1S+0wSdSw2IuxNdvKgzaHVkrYTx0o4yAq7v3Nkw1nYq+96VvgtZ9hZnPbVApC+UpPKAqdeqxjlWXZ7Au62sbr8pSOClWdGbWTfZI9OgFAoqro0lKjXyCILLCAyI+3evwxI4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=EbRqHbsD; 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="EbRqHbsD" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CAD11F000E9; Sun, 16 Aug 2026 19:10:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1786907414; bh=iR6IAKOZKy95BLSUHFK6MXY/YV8hSVxpWjFmKYp0jfo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=EbRqHbsD0/rBMibGFOOl7INVE0luZOFQtxgi2IDt9g9KbchSYVW+GrdYqOFvHCmG6 bRWSklYRoB1kptd6GwcMdmxDYDEiF+tjdoXmGXG1S4Wwn+q93ofkNMuWMt8Z+cDu0F UMqcICrNZQR8hTKpVL8TNZESjRTjGHz0YAQTj6OIxJ1c6WOhf46oPfionArHcYrUoq FnKohcxQ10A9KbOcykR4MEkoZxZq26Qvvfihth920V0fIbPuVGSyZCsa4BNS4wLM9L 7OJmMxaXDnAXE38y507iPTEDcUUGda6Tu6oFGtLVY1SRJ4Yg1kyYbYc+M2YbGqWNLI ESUmOdM74wceQ== Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2026 09:10:13 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Tvrtko Ursulin Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Boris Brezillon , Steven Price , Liviu Dudau , Chia-I Wu , Matthew Brost , kernel-dev@igalia.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bradley Morgan , Chia-I Wu , Breno Leitao Subject: Re: [RFC v4 1/2] workqueue: Add support for real-time workers Message-ID: References: <20260804101925.55414-1-tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.com> <20260804101925.55414-2-tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.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: <20260804101925.55414-2-tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.com> (cc'ing Breno as he has been working in the area) Hello, Sorry about the delay. On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 11:19:24AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > struct workqueue_attrs { > /** > - * @nice: nice level > + * @prio: priority level > + */ > + enum wq_priority prio; > + > + /** > + * @nice: nice level for WQ_PRIO_HIGH > */ > int nice; I find this rather confusing. We're scattering the same internal state across multiple fields. If you look at scheduler code, rt and normal nice values are encoded into a single prio value, maybe we can do the same? > static int alloc_and_link_pwqs(struct workqueue_struct *wq) > { > - bool highpri = wq->flags & WQ_HIGHPRI; > - int cpu, ret; > + int prio, cpu, ret; > > lockdep_assert_held(&wq_pool_mutex); > > + if (wq->flags & WQ_RTPRI) > + prio = WQ_PRIO_RT; > + else if (wq->flags & WQ_HIGHPRI) > + prio = WQ_PRIO_HIGH; > + else > + prio = WQ_PRIO_NORMAL; > + > wq->cpu_pwq = alloc_percpu(struct pool_workqueue *); > if (!wq->cpu_pwq) > goto enomem; > @@ -5622,7 +5637,7 @@ static int alloc_and_link_pwqs(struct workqueue_struct *wq) > struct pool_workqueue **pwq_p; > struct worker_pool *pool; > > - pool = &(per_cpu_ptr(pools, cpu)[highpri]); > + pool = &(per_cpu_ptr(pools, cpu)[prio]); And this looks a bit confusing too because there's no per-cpu counterpart but it looks like there should be. I wonder whether this would look better after the percpu and unbound pool unification that Breno is working on. Thanks. -- tejun