From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 0808274420; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 19:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755028343; cv=none; b=F9cYp7xv81u5aQyHocu99xPVWuGSjbU+ef+ktVr7qjDNTKQ/tiBJlF801GubUpZpXjtnUPtW1WWDXIH2qBd2Om/TZzBxou9UUIpLfaSplDpUkzYqOxtByfdzLaKMmGnoNeKsW/I52LI2Kq7I+Sp/7GNCn9gdWMl14KMHIJ0XBu8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755028343; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EWG5kAL/Ns/8hOr1OySYjFtWDg18A78ZP5BXzP7VvO4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=V8QiAwqGYV3JHHgDEItYEWY1LCIycHGEkMLlO6RUhkuIfV7WC5zSk9Rewez9ckEUEDwvxigmn0Qq4JGqAEnT1v733O7qCTKFoq4jW0lNt+5U2yhUDHM49IqarmOW/v9xzKKdEOhoaUZjkYPx9GmEUNdyL+yJMnds4BsAOKRwUEE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=LMEMalru; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="LMEMalru" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A748C4CEF0; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 19:52:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1755028342; bh=EWG5kAL/Ns/8hOr1OySYjFtWDg18A78ZP5BXzP7VvO4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=LMEMalruz0fBGUDsTe5fSqjlX7I48DWPERT1R6ba/W2X0fqhj0G5XuE7aXt4SNSMS H8mIbw+5JIP9hQjYT6KZZ1Y027/Pe0CkqmsHt0flMHaalKQyqZ/b48CVMp+UjFjV2W 8NMIPU61zIDSCSInhterr0Uc9zUQH+MXBhlBxegErTv8p033WePHuQHmGDb+rH9MhY EaEYSr2ZWlFWOZshqrM165pC1u6vND/tukpZY3a2aKk7H141AEr0GXKcwqA/u3wEl6 B07Nq0qGvmqcXHvGqjrUefhvpxwU3DjwyfO4Nx5VktUXc+GT53jXePtEbKWEykZ0zK /DoaCjr+zIT+w== Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 09:52:21 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Andrey Albershteyn , fsverity@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com, djwong@kernel.org, ebiggers@kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 04/29] fsverity: add per-sb workqueue for post read processing Message-ID: References: <20250728-fsverity-v1-0-9e5443af0e34@kernel.org> <20250728-fsverity-v1-4-9e5443af0e34@kernel.org> <20250811114519.GA8969@lst.de> <20250812074350.GC18413@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@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: <20250812074350.GC18413@lst.de> Hello, On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 09:43:50AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: ... > Andrey (or others involved with previous versions): is interference > with the log completion workqueue what you ran into? > > Tejun, are you going to prepare a patch to fix the rescuer priority? NVM, I was confused. All rescuers, regardless of the associated workqueue, set their nice level to MIN_NICE. IIRC, the rationale was that by the time rescuer triggers the queued work items already have experienced noticeable latencies and that rescuer invocations would be pretty rare. I'd be surprised if rescuer behavior is showing up as easily observable interferences in most cases. The system should already be thrashing quite a bit for rescuers to be active and whatever noise rescuer behavior might cause should usually be drowned by other things. Thanks. -- tejun