Hello,
This generally looks fine to me. Some nits below.
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:06:07PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> @@ -432,6 +433,9 @@ struct workqueue_struct *alloc_workqueue(const char *fmt,
> WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 1, (name))
> #define create_singlethread_workqueue(name) \
> alloc_ordered_workqueue("%s", __WQ_LEGACY | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, name)
> +#define create_singlethread_sysfs_workqueue(name) \
> + alloc_ordered_workqueue("%s", __WQ_MAX_ACTIVE_RO | \
> + __WQ_LEGACY | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, name)
Please don't add a new wrapper. Just convert the user to call
alloc_ordered_workqueue() directly. I don't think we need __WQ_MAX_ACTIVE_RO
as a separate flag. The behavior can be implied in __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT,
and __WQ_LEGACY is there just to disable dependency check because users of
older interace aren't marking MEM_RECLAIM correctly.
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index c41c3c17b86a..a80d34726e68 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -4258,6 +4258,9 @@ struct workqueue_struct *alloc_workqueue(const char
> *fmt,
> if ((flags & WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT) && wq_power_efficient)
> flags |= WQ_UNBOUND;
>
> + if (flags & __WQ_MAX_ACTIVE_RO)
> + flags |= WQ_SYSFS;
Just let the user set WQ_SYSFS like other users?
Thanks.
--
tejun
