From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 25B251E1C29; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:10:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744834243; cv=none; b=JmuRNP/VRiwnAprEa5ANN74DOYACq4/SSl0p4OmDHPnnl/p2ihYWAPwUfWALRU2+NWVX11zhwNV02kvsWXYPH9swDKAXkWO0VUZSEMb5d4YCK+CrNZGu053IZlazp5daoh7yTeYm90gVeBecmxAP5KrIwswwQTZ3kjRZ0T6sOLs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744834243; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uNSknGRTypmLLgbZkT44oRKzJGwL6ZsiONV7p8bwBiE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=G3oWC0T2TuCts7F4A/Ks+0W3r37jQVqfPQmkfL8jUOZ1UYKsMEe1hIPflzn02u5GvxqVOnfhNS5f2o742saskiy0SE7XU5H7t6zgXc4b+SssD+uyBZVXTfcJlddXP4dI+nOQl0fEf9g0k/0xlq0zwilEUsvVkJa2kFb+YaBVaQo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=R2x55AHb; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="R2x55AHb" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7761AC4CEE2; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:10:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1744834242; bh=uNSknGRTypmLLgbZkT44oRKzJGwL6ZsiONV7p8bwBiE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=R2x55AHbiX6rlTH+b6QgJlRnKDtovu0rGMFse5B4SxXDqpMjEfQYv1HcXUSfJz7kp rqw/vBiAw8M6iCWwFuujcMIRc32ere50JmZZWhtalUQ8OANxCD2bZXOadhmHMdJCfc RBJuYuX34SBkb4Fv8FBuoifmqrOekggJjLqdamqjsPAUTeAjmYX05amte/voZXtJU0 XxQIWA+xdPWB+5L3Usqi9G99NvRhe5MbB7pv4S08nXjXOPYpplKjsL8Osfe3gmsWED xPcieYQtI8J6UUVUo9s6WZKzmnrhAHBoZXJlXhFC4v7wT1zzkWiLZ/kDHQiZEiNGJE dTWJykQRrZhxQ== Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 10:10:41 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Alice Ryhl Cc: Danilo Krummrich , Miguel Ojeda , Lai Jiangshan , Boqun Feng , Gary Guo , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Roy Baron , Benno Lossin , Andreas Hindborg , Trevor Gross , Daniel Almeida , Tamir Duberstein , rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: rust: add creation of workqueues Message-ID: References: <20250411-create-workqueue-v1-1-f7dbe7f1e05f@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: rust-for-linux@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: On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 10:08:35PM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote: ... > > This should be pretty cheap and we can probably enable this for everyone, > > but if the overhead is noticeable, this can be an optional behavior > > depending on a workqueue flag. > > My only concern is that we're executing work items *before* the > deadline they specified. There could be work items that assume this > doesn't happen? But maybe it's okay. Otherwise, what you suggest seems > reasonable enough to me. That's already what flush_delayed_work() does, so I don't think it'd be too surprising. Alternatively, we can go for canceling on draining/destruction but that'd be more surprising I think. As long as the behavior is documented clearly, I don't see problems with running and flushing them. Thanks. -- tejun