From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 4272D1C5D7D for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2026 00:34:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785717258; cv=none; b=bC9dBCqGRA8Met5ey9gLS1iumdAVPI8Cicv6ZNlxj0noGhWcAD4N1Q/Ikqoy7XF48grU+VnCSS4YVdkuMxMiBvdnZdfDZDxN2dHhP0BvHsPXC/YRQqJOBUii+i4Oxn/55lvcOpdzqIZb/CGdmrMfst6Ps5Q+7Gapumb7HbP0Dcg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785717258; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YO3IXOA6xe0PBYxcXahs1bBgF2ZteRqYut1G0dAyVUg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=S96PUdBll1B8bmI2/8ukN/2dt3xhGrWVrAQhHtii71klNsh5Zk91q55ohNDEM8djyQNP34suvyAVESmgJ2RHZvoKewDADi0aLZ0FzfZ61N8QYX+HuRfMPAA7+kYLzUVmJdV7sWxxbIJBZ8xryBwxpum4ZHWwvsICHOidUR61snQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=DuCdLglK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="DuCdLglK" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC1311F000E9; Mon, 3 Aug 2026 00:34:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1785717256; bh=ynDmCEfobPPhogUK1jD7Ms+yjAJldfPRJEdcU6iUjvc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=DuCdLglKiStYQC/+erP20q4kpUugBc00ajyhLvzwZl4m4WNv/12H0AWg4mkRdtcq5 sDp4D3Kd/zKrfcp76Y5fa6CwMZ5fVa9j19qNkLmLgh2Zmw5XTB+CoIV9ZoHwMMrk+K 22GqsOIUVazuVvDH6UgQVTx6fQKw4IIPqMog6L4nXjkr+iZeQOtj2/wWcJ7Bs5mQv/ +mXPL2DbbrPyI183v2KcWl5HHjrRgRFOkakyEoHhuZ/v6JGHQwbsVF5ATVBr0Gjcjh I+pJmBNKMLHQMicmOk0zCugpxVu/FTUHf+5pX0m+H7u9hUt+5xnxf9iOrtDdruqw1J 9ISc2qyJBKN0g== Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2026 14:34:16 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Breno Leitao Cc: Lai Jiangshan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, marco.crivellari@suse.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] workqueue: account nr_active by the backing pool Message-ID: References: <20260731-wq-pool-refactor-v1-0-8eaf71cdab5f@debian.org> <20260731-wq-pool-refactor-v1-4-8eaf71cdab5f@debian.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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: <20260731-wq-pool-refactor-v1-4-8eaf71cdab5f@debian.org> Hello, On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 04:57:36AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote: > @@ -1796,6 +1799,10 @@ static bool pwq_tryinc_nr_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq, bool fill) > if (unlikely(pwq->plugged)) > return false; > > + nna = wq_node_nr_active(wq, pool->node); > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!nna)) > + return false; Would it make sense to turn WQ_UNBOUND test in wq_node_nr_active() into a WARN_ON_ONCE()? And I don't think the return value needs a null check. Thanks. -- tejun