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 B3C301C5D7D for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2026 00:36:53 +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=1785717414; cv=none; b=hzc3j+cm+GYXlF6IvWNihYZvO182IuCrO272sAaiUJkk4+SKQXMKpUvDHQBYoX5qCPrmIhHTov7miEbNMd9O2jav3jGiW3J3hv6CU7lzbDp66/7pLEJ4ERbzXGtW1/7dYDJZ/aRQMz8jAZnyO/mbx+nhxaprbHyJqlYstKmjtMM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785717414; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XTFVhTjzVsH5n1VilmDC2HBiDjpS7G7wWXGIzws5eYI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=MELBZecns59/vJ+uFpS+2enpXVttTm/1vdf7Ca2flLQn4q5+ZmulZd+tu8WI4r6tIewAhvgcsiovBSQjNvM49bvYPRwnxSqOllZ4aENV+WRmPl5+APGtshYWoG/QBetDwtxq/dkops7lRMGvFMXVtHmP8izCmAlVAi3GOSQLRNM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=LxpBUB9n; 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="LxpBUB9n" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2EEAA1F000E9; Mon, 3 Aug 2026 00:36:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1785717413; bh=93jG2ChDdjOSfvaJ8oOhmvO5nsTNE1vplBoresYeayk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=LxpBUB9nH4epewJNzE+mC/ARaNtRiP0ocl16z0LukRRr5SzcQo6Ry7qWI5tMXbiE3 YusXrdGcdgppjw9oAaZVZma2pj9E6Src3g1hwCP48QzziIO3UNwP/GEWDziD51zSpu m1BIuauJCtvMoq+SlKzo9JP9R889Ms+zEDaxwiFVuaV2peRsELwVWT7RLM3yj7b2c/ p95jEHDxy0WiJjQoy5aN8cLrN2esMNWq/H17w2J22yETrxxFJgvrOvcSIFhr54kpOs vzveLYlyF0wa0N6lrSPZ5afMhWaC2zwz0LZrIbBrXoH95DrryiVcNnXTMXEb2IsQtw XnMOtFx57LmbQ== Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2026 14:36:52 -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 5/6] workqueue: add a per-cpu backend for unbound pwqs Message-ID: References: <20260731-wq-pool-refactor-v1-0-8eaf71cdab5f@debian.org> <20260731-wq-pool-refactor-v1-5-8eaf71cdab5f@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-v1-5-8eaf71cdab5f@debian.org> Hello, On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 04:57:37AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote: > Add alloc_percpu_pwq(), which binds a pwq to get_percpu_pool(wq, cpu), > and an internal __WQ_PERCPU_POOLS flag. unbound_wq_update_pwq() installs > such a pwq per CPU when the flag is set, reusing the existing > install/drain path. Pool release and nr_active are already keyed on the > backing pool, so a per-cpu-backed pwq is torn down and throttled > correctly. > > PS: We can do this using if/else for per cpu/unbound as well, instead of > this labels:, would it be better? So, we would have percpu-pool backed unbound workqueues in addition to the existing percpu workqueues? I'm not sure that makes sense. What prevents unifying them? Thanks. -- tejun