All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@suse.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	"James E . J . Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
	"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi: scsi_transport_srp: Move long delayed work on system_dfl_long_wq
Date: Fri, 8 May 2026 09:11:21 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b0c7c212-c9d9-48bf-9531-9b99b090d4f0@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260507143410.337267-1-marco.crivellari@suse.com>

On 5/7/26 7:34 AM, Marco Crivellari wrote:
> Currently the code enqueue work items using {queue|mod}_delayed_work(),
> using system_long_wq. This workqueue should be used when long works are
> expected and it is a per-cpu workqueue.
> 
> The function(s) end up calling __queue_delayed_work(), which set a global
> timer that could fire anywhere, enqueuing the work where the timer fired.
> 
> Unbound works could benefit from scheduler task placement, to optimize
> performance and power consumption. Long work shouldn't stick to a single
> CPU.
> 
> Recently, a new unbound workqueue specific for long running work has
> been added:
> 
>      c116737e972e ("workqueue: Add system_dfl_long_wq for long unbound works")
> 
> Since the workqueue work doesn't rely on per-cpu variables, there is no
> obvious reason that justify the use of a per-cpu workqueue. So change
> system_long_wq with system_dfl_long_wq so that the work may benefit from
> scheduler task placement.

This looks like unnecessary churn to me. The motivation for the
introduction of system_dfl_long_wq seems very weak to me. Wouldn't we
all be better off if commit c116737e972e would be reverted and if the
behavior of system_long_wq would be modified from per-CPU into unbound?

Thanks,

Bart.

  reply	other threads:[~2026-05-08 16:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-07 14:34 [RFC PATCH] scsi: scsi_transport_srp: Move long delayed work on system_dfl_long_wq Marco Crivellari
2026-05-08 16:11 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2026-05-09 13:30   ` Marco Crivellari
2026-05-11 20:26 ` Bart Van Assche
2026-05-15  1:58 ` Martin K. Petersen
2026-05-15  7:37   ` Marco Crivellari

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=b0c7c212-c9d9-48bf-9531-9b99b090d4f0@acm.org \
    --to=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marco.crivellari@suse.com \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.