From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.155]) (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 D147A26FDBF; Mon, 11 May 2026 14:37:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.155 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778510234; cv=none; b=EyWe7XILmJVtIIR9Xd9qi0jU2tfmvNI5fnXbpp2eAYuO+FyA0FVoOy/8B9Gqrr1cB47ZwAhxfkMZ+h8B3Oe8S2mxyc96HJf+kO6diFGREGOgiWzQts0on1/4YNnaaPOpJQsY1E+kItptZs3NO9hME5ZYzodfYDqwTcDn76KhLCk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778510234; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MHWR6PcI4v4xFWUM66sMRBlCTGkVqmXoACACvDyfhH8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=EeysYlq0F6bAba65frcqb6Uni96ttP35UFJJ87McGT7U4oPj5LXcIB+4KEZwIJNUSWQkQaIHfSpYI+dKIhf5YwDttq5MzYzJ7yuGyaGujQA7RsAEyI77WGzYVhiooQg0GjzpONpFu764gmGnaX5frboWkqkyg7zqSeM2icl3WQk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=queasysnail.net header.i=@queasysnail.net header.b=lc725K2V; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=e681zYKF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.155 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=queasysnail.net header.i=@queasysnail.net header.b="lc725K2V"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="e681zYKF" Received: from phl-compute-06.internal (phl-compute-06.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED1D0140017A; Mon, 11 May 2026 10:37:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-03 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-06.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 11 May 2026 10:37:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=queasysnail.net; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1778510230; x= 1778596630; bh=DraMNZxC4g0xYvI3vQ/+Pl5BNX6fpYIX5MbSgrxrC0o=; b=l c725K2V4gvQiLVfBiGWwuKuzDBanFbFWtkxTwDYq8rbeJ//hDXVTSGtzzIe+VjD5 V0vwEa4q/PaDVbJBLG/6CtSOAFLcYi+128mM6HShWmaRwFIGEco/3rCDb1mwr01l rXkcKu6eK7wXKneUvSfesOcyFNwmAR1xSBJ5TfCBre+lo07eL5DiDkfm1+QB0cXk 2tt6FeUMLb1nRZ6n+a1QMAh3SgtCuhDrRHHd/Y7daKo3gtB5MWZzf2pcOg+pdKUj BF2x5xcRYL4xDJKfp2GcHr3xEXroRy+wIN1Es/7RkR4UfddIf7KEXZrQzVjlcbwY 95FpBz8OWc20aGH5ZLPhw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1778510230; x=1778596630; bh=DraMNZxC4g0xYvI3vQ/+Pl5BNX6fpYIX5Mb SgrxrC0o=; b=e681zYKFbw3CZ1cyD9FV6+tshJn19OXmS0cQWa7Iy1xUb7+tLa1 s8fJjqdQMyGw26s1q0+tCd6h2xDwnBKtrPfkLKS6hUjVC9nhk3T2NWwNMKKY2pG6 PoLTEl6LrIPnDhaV+xh/7gXOhOJ14yuygnqbqYsOt6sdVE6aBBd6q3EkgoqYfKcP JeWtbWRfAsPoaA9igRmVhtp10894MhZiR6dSTN+irZ6LUB9KZ0iz09dK0VMuzJPv C9rJYfEf9jIEOHgsiUJHquWBxre6XwgN+Yq8fpomeBYoAcYyAIdXbCbp0ahvX9p9 rLcj4aCcFiHeh/xlE1vrSmXNJh1gLyyfpoQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefhedrtddtgdduudeludelucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepufgrsghrihhn rgcuffhusghrohgtrgcuoehsugesqhhuvggrshihshhnrghilhdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrf grthhtvghrnhepuefhhfffgfffhfefueeiudegtdefhfekgeetheegheeifffguedvueff fefgudffnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh epshgusehquhgvrghshihsnhgrihhlrdhnvghtpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopedugedpmhho uggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtoheprghlvgigjhhliihhvghnghesghhmrghilh drtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopegrlhgsihhnfiihrghnghesthgvnhgtvghnthdrtghomhdp rhgtphhtthhopegrlhgvgihjlhiihhgvnhhgsehtvghntggvnhhtrdgtohhmpdhrtghpth htoheprghnughrvgifodhnvghtuggvvheslhhunhhnrdgthhdprhgtphhtthhopegurghv vghmsegurghvvghmlhhofhhtrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepvgguuhhmrgiivghtsehgoh hoghhlvgdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehhrghnnhgvshesshhtrhgvshhsihhnughukhht ihhonhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehhohhrmhhssehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtph htthhopehkuhgsrgeskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i934648bf:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 11 May 2026 10:37:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 16:37:07 +0200 From: Sabrina Dubroca To: Jinliang Zheng Cc: albinwyang@tencent.com, alexjlzheng@tencent.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, hannes@stressinduktion.org, horms@kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org, kuniyu@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, shenyangyang4@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3 1/3] macsec: introduce dedicated workqueue for SA crypto cleanup Message-ID: References: <20260511140005.2619263-1-alexjlzheng@tencent.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260511140005.2619263-1-alexjlzheng@tencent.com> 2026-05-11, 22:00:05 +0800, Jinliang Zheng wrote: > On Sun, 11 May 2026, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > > + macsec_wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("macsec", 0); > > > > Why did you pick an ordered workqueue instead of a normal one? > > I chose an ordered workqueue for its serialized execution, which > avoids potential ordering issues between concurrent SA destructions. > In hindsight, there is no actual ordering dependency between SA > cleanups, so a normal workqueue is sufficient here. > > Should I send a v4 with that switched to alloc_workqueue()? Probably doesn't really matter, but since your cover letter mentions "unnecessary latency", maybe? Would it make a difference in your use case? I think it would mostly help when we try to unload the module with lots of SAs, otherwise the only difference will be that actual freeing of resources will be a bit slower. (OTOH it would avoid giving the "wrong impression", that the ordered variant of the WQ is needed, when it's not) Either way, the patch looks ok to me, so for this version: Reviewed-by: Sabrina Dubroca -- Sabrina