From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C2AC352A3 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 23:43:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293162467D for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 23:43:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1581637380; bh=QvXr0ccIUZIRsqUcy6mdX4RvItZ/HQGPAVqIR5RAVyo=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:List-ID:From; b=nc1/mWlVmU/h//wSQpM0PqNaVghqtjTnPLNNAfjxKkx4xQRCMaosKHoO75xxLxn10 k1+Jmg1IGXJfvQjG/VeRUBQeMglouECrd6pjOxmyxkR135SbFfIcTuL4ipJJXKBq0L KG3YW9srt6Lzd8qws9Zf694+UhMG9KJsgb2SCNmI= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727595AbgBMXm7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:42:59 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:50548 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727594AbgBMXm7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:42:59 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-f182.google.com (mail-lj1-f182.google.com [209.85.208.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89F6D2467D; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 23:42:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1581637378; bh=QvXr0ccIUZIRsqUcy6mdX4RvItZ/HQGPAVqIR5RAVyo=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=cPo6gRm2riJCg2de4KFKjGUPyih5I99+ID98XQlsTTxOWt9KQ5Pfqdzsd5F8lPb46 PWQzSbOz7vIG+xvGz7PfCbmDfooxlwTbJpl1r0D3JFRAOkqSLvkxfK8/0KLnmSKU0Y 1H66ieYG9DmRRXq2PvYmmF1St6fRqy/EY5GTTf3U= Received: by mail-lj1-f182.google.com with SMTP id v17so8650836ljg.4; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:42:58 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUb1CfRx2QXhgS6f3LnmqO1jgROFnwsemZxbhjIQIyd3pwJn9VF m+rbhCifUv5Zkw30EnyNy1zzXRKHtCfuRH3rsRU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyMTY5BiLP/4jYWIAjsVYrB8h/h7Ek++s0e6pxXO6PqFXN3+xu4BLWRYI1/YeOOm0rQ6bFf5+MVwGHlLSORLHc= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a553:: with SMTP id e19mr168246ljn.64.1581637376641; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:42:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200213141823.2174236-1-mplaneta@os.inf.tu-dresden.de> <20200213153645.GA11313@redhat.com> <82715589-8b59-5cfd-a32f-1e57871327fe@os.inf.tu-dresden.de> In-Reply-To: <82715589-8b59-5cfd-a32f-1e57871327fe@os.inf.tu-dresden.de> From: Song Liu Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:42:45 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: Remove WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE flag from unbound wq's To: Maksym Planeta Cc: Mike Snitzer , Zhou Wang , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Alasdair Kergon , dm-devel@redhat.com, Gao Xiang , Chao Yu , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, open list , linux-raid , linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:19 AM Maksym Planeta wrote: > > > > On 13/02/2020 16:36, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 13 2020 at 9:18am -0500, > > Maksym Planeta wrote: > > > >> The documentation [1] says that WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE is "meaningless" for > >> unbound wq. I remove this flag from places where unbound queue is > >> allocated. This is supposed to improve code readability. > >> > >> 1. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/core-api/workqueue.html#flags > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Maksym Planeta > > > > What the Documentation says aside, have you cross referenced with the > > code? And/or have you done benchmarks to verify no changes? > > > > It seems so from the code. Although, I'm not 100% confident. I did not > run benchmarks, instead I relied that on the assumption that > documentation is correct. >From the code, WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE is only used to set WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE, and WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE is only used as part of WORKER_NOT_RUNNING, which includes WORKER_UNBOUND. So, I agree that with current code, WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE with WQ_UNBOUND is same as WQ_UNBOUND alone. However, I don't think it is necessary to make the changes. They don't really improve readability of the code. Thanks, Song