Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Drop WQ_PERCPU from ordered_flags in btrfs_init_workqueues()

[Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>]

Hi Tejun,

Could you please pick up this patch for -next to clear up this warning?
Not sure if this was on your radar since it is a btrfs change.

On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 02:52:38AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 07:46:26PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > After commit 21c05ca88a54 ("workqueue: Add warnings and ensure one among
> > WQ_PERCPU or WQ_UNBOUND is present"), there is a warning from the
> > btrfs-qgroup-rescan workqueue at run time:
> > 
> >   workqueue: btrfs-qgroup-rescan uses both WQ_PERCPU and WQ_UNBOUND. Dropped WQ_PERCPU, keeping WQ_UNBOUND.
> > 
> > WQ_PERCPU is included in ordered_flags after commit 69635d7f4b34 ("fs:
> > WQ_PERCPU added to alloc_workqueue users") and WQ_UNBOUND is set in
> > alloc_ordered_workqueue(), which btrfs_alloc_ordered_workqueue() calls.
> > 
> > Drop WQ_PERCPU from ordered_flags, as alloc_ordered_workqueue() notes
> > that only WQ_FREEZABLE and WQ_MEM_RECLAIM are meaningful.
> > 
> > Fixes: 69635d7f4b34 ("fs: WQ_PERCPU added to alloc_workqueue users")
> > Fixes: 21c05ca88a54 ("workqueue: Add warnings and ensure one among WQ_PERCPU or WQ_UNBOUND is present")
> > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
> 
> This will solve the following issue I am seeing in linux-next:
> 
>    workqueue: btrfs-qgroup-rescan uses both WQ_PERCPU and WQ_UNBOUND. Dropped WQ_PERCPU, keeping WQ_UNBOUND.

-- 
Cheers,
Nathan