On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:19 AM Maksym Planeta <mplaneta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 13/02/2020 16:36, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 13 2020 at 9:18am -0500, > > Maksym Planeta <mplaneta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> The documentation [1] says that WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE is "meaningless" for > >> unbound wq. I remove this flag from places where unbound queue is > >> allocated. This is supposed to improve code readability. > >> > >> 1. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/core-api/workqueue.html#flags > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Maksym Planeta <mplaneta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > What the Documentation says aside, have you cross referenced with the > > code? And/or have you done benchmarks to verify no changes? > > > > It seems so from the code. Although, I'm not 100% confident. I did not > run benchmarks, instead I relied that on the assumption that > documentation is correct. >From the code, WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE is only used to set WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE, and WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE is only used as part of WORKER_NOT_RUNNING, which includes WORKER_UNBOUND. So, I agree that with current code, WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE with WQ_UNBOUND is same as WQ_UNBOUND alone. However, I don't think it is necessary to make the changes. They don't really improve readability of the code. Thanks, Song -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
