The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@suse.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	"James E . J . Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
	"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi: scsi_transport_srp: Move long delayed work on system_dfl_long_wq
Date: Fri, 8 May 2026 09:11:21 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b0c7c212-c9d9-48bf-9531-9b99b090d4f0@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260507143410.337267-1-marco.crivellari@suse.com>

On 5/7/26 7:34 AM, Marco Crivellari wrote:
> Currently the code enqueue work items using {queue|mod}_delayed_work(),
> using system_long_wq. This workqueue should be used when long works are
> expected and it is a per-cpu workqueue.
> 
> The function(s) end up calling __queue_delayed_work(), which set a global
> timer that could fire anywhere, enqueuing the work where the timer fired.
> 
> Unbound works could benefit from scheduler task placement, to optimize
> performance and power consumption. Long work shouldn't stick to a single
> CPU.
> 
> Recently, a new unbound workqueue specific for long running work has
> been added:
> 
>      c116737e972e ("workqueue: Add system_dfl_long_wq for long unbound works")
> 
> Since the workqueue work doesn't rely on per-cpu variables, there is no
> obvious reason that justify the use of a per-cpu workqueue. So change
> system_long_wq with system_dfl_long_wq so that the work may benefit from
> scheduler task placement.

This looks like unnecessary churn to me. The motivation for the
introduction of system_dfl_long_wq seems very weak to me. Wouldn't we
all be better off if commit c116737e972e would be reverted and if the
behavior of system_long_wq would be modified from per-CPU into unbound?

Thanks,

Bart.

  reply	other threads:[~2026-05-08 16:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-07 14:34 [RFC PATCH] scsi: scsi_transport_srp: Move long delayed work on system_dfl_long_wq Marco Crivellari
2026-05-08 16:11 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2026-05-09 13:30   ` Marco Crivellari
2026-05-11 20:26 ` Bart Van Assche

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=b0c7c212-c9d9-48bf-9531-9b99b090d4f0@acm.org \
    --to=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marco.crivellari@suse.com \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /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