From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@suse.com>,
Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add queue_*() functions and prefer per-cpu workqueue and flag
Date: Fri, 8 May 2026 05:11:07 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <af39C3mzxU-UpdL6@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <af3ScBO5z0fyS7zW@pavilion.home>
Hello,
On Fri, May 08, 2026 at 02:09:20PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Isn't WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT enough for what we want here? ie: it does a per-cpu
> preference except when some config is enabled or isolation is on. It could be
> renamed to WQ_PREFER_PERCPU to generalize its meaning for more than just power
> purposes.
That may satisfy the minimum requirement but I think it'd be a shame if we
do all the work and still leave the semantics overloaded, which was the
initial problem to begin with. I really want the intent of each specific
selection expressed unambigiously.
Besides, even outside of isolation use cases, having relaxed affinity can be
useful as it gives the scheduler more leeway in placement decisions. e.g.
There's no real downsides to running such work item on SMT pair or maybe
that CPU is particularly overloaded due to net irq and rx processing and
some work items are better off running on another CPU in the same LLC and so
on. If we can manage so without causing perf issues, I want the default to
be soft affinity, not a hard one.
Thanks.
--
tejun
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-08 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-05 16:16 [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add queue_*() functions and prefer per-cpu workqueue and flag Marco Crivellari
2026-05-05 16:16 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Add queue_*() functions, future schedule_*() replacement Marco Crivellari
2026-05-05 16:16 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] workqueue: Add WQ_PREFER_PERCPU and system_prefer_percpu_wq Marco Crivellari
2026-05-05 20:18 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add queue_*() functions and prefer per-cpu workqueue and flag Tejun Heo
2026-05-06 13:40 ` Breno Leitao
2026-05-07 10:25 ` Marco Crivellari
2026-05-07 21:27 ` Tejun Heo
2026-05-08 12:09 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2026-05-08 15:11 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
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=af39C3mzxU-UpdL6@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marco.crivellari@suse.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox