From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (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 3D6DE2877DF; Mon, 22 Sep 2025 11:33:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758540795; cv=none; b=s26esgzLQaTUn1cMrFjw0HjXZwD0qvgB6b1l2tIDprvkOxyTnN+nK6cspzAPsazmsMuY4aN+rVdkxCuP0Jzi/SPwIn96V1ENErNz6qjHHmgkRj9nDjz8cUn6+eynl3Ivzh6LHZwwpKmodJL5/FlABkdmunjMRHD7pLHy6qDrGrA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758540795; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JdtzYqDXJN0YAlihtRSDdwdNLzKFCTT8HObuKo41drc=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=urIxqd6Fd0fuG8jrpgXGJKdj3t+O5kSlwdXbL0p5lwWO6w6paNxDQms0b4KgwsA9wN7lGN7vcGXZbSk5WGdvTUhSrkdQzK6d68VSewS1pgEB7lSV83d4z70aCb4APTYEcypFLlk+LGAqsNzaLc7JlWyd4zgKivdhmWRWKdf9iZ4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=f4PQRb6a; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="f4PQRb6a" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=JdtzYqDXJN0YAlihtRSDdwdNLzKFCTT8HObuKo41drc=; t=1758540794; x=1759750394; b=f4PQRb6aPikwjaiuaY4kp2u2l0eLMiIMDBNiwq+rwxhSkcY cLEemXeKgo2pTztmc7ggFoKQzP2SiNVx/zJ5TY/c7WB1NnKsNwq0LQ1fYtwL4yA2oj8qBIpMK8RM4 DC1rbUu3qUF5epbo0Qvx9KDJpURv8FBX2EgaGCreXf2ImE4T/uu169CjD4E0umWV8u0dJr1KS18DC EC+7EsW5nsre7dK/ofWhC1wJyUULfrlQ3aQPX6A6vDqweaH86cLSjoG85TSiKNKPeK23HY75eya8Z euoTnTzsIVjnC7jgqu/dFtzjOJbXlLyiBpGJkusyXG9LXPLk+Wp0ob52f5Ve73EA==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1v0en8-00000004V8l-3fsF; Mon, 22 Sep 2025 13:33:11 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] wifi: libertas: WQ_PERCPU added to alloc_workqueue users From: Johannes Berg To: Marco Crivellari , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Cc: Tejun Heo , Lai Jiangshan , Frederic Weisbecker , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Michal Hocko , Francesco Dolcini , Brian Norris , Sascha Hauer , Kalle Valo , "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" , Jeff Chen , Stefan Kerkmann Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 13:33:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20250922102407.186660-2-marco.crivellari@suse.com> References: <20250922102407.186660-1-marco.crivellari@suse.com> <20250922102407.186660-2-marco.crivellari@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-2.fc42) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Mon, 2025-09-22 at 12:24 +0200, Marco Crivellari wrote: >=20 > With the introduction of the WQ_PERCPU flag (equivalent to !WQ_UNBOUND), > any alloc_workqueue() caller that doesn=E2=80=99t explicitly specify WQ_U= NBOUND > must now use WQ_PERCPU. Which I guess forces a decision, and should be kept for a few releases, but ... is "keep what it did" really the right decision in all places? It seems to me that for instance for libertas here, there really is no reason to be CPU bound? johannes