From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maksym Planeta Subject: Re: Remove WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE flag from unbound wq's Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 17:19:01 +0100 Message-ID: <82715589-8b59-5cfd-a32f-1e57871327fe@os.inf.tu-dresden.de> References: <20200213141823.2174236-1-mplaneta@os.inf.tu-dresden.de> <20200213153645.GA11313@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20200213153645.GA11313@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Snitzer Cc: Zhou Wang , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Alasdair Kergon , dm-devel@redhat.com, Song Liu , Gao Xiang , Chao Yu , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids 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. > Thanks, > Mike > -- Regards, Maksym Planeta