On Wed, Jan 31 2024 at 7:19P -0500, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31 2024 at 7:04P -0500, > Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hello, Linus. > > > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 03:19:01PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 13:32, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't know, so just did the dumb thing. If the caller always guarantees > > > > that the work items are never queued at the same time, reusing is fine. > > > > > > So the reason I thought it would be a good cleanup to introduce that > > > "atomic" workqueue thing (now "bh") was that this case literally has a > > > switch between "use tasklets' or "use workqueues". > > > > > > So it's not even about "reusing" the workqueue, it's literally a > > > matter of making it always just use workqueues, and the switch then > > > becomes just *which* workqueue to use - system or bh. > > > > Yeah, that's how the dm-crypt got converted. The patch just before this one. > > This one probably can be converted the same way. I don't see the work item > > being re-initialized. It probably is better to initialize the work item > > together with the enclosing struct and then just queue it when needed. > > Sounds good. > > > Mikulas, I couldn't decide what to do with the "try_verify_in_tasklet" > > option and just decided to do the minimal thing hoping that someone more > > familiar with the code can take over the actual conversion. How much of user > > interface commitment is that? Should it be renamed or would it be better to > > leave it be? > > cryptsetup did add support for it, so I think it worthwhile to > preserve the option; but it'd be fine to have it just be a backward > compatible alias for a more appropriately named option? Hey Tejun, I'm not sure where things stand with the 6.9 workqueue changes to add BH workqueue. I had a look at your various branches and I'm not seeing where you might have staged any conversion patches (like this dm-verity one). I just staged various unrelated dm-verity and dm-crypt 6.8 fixes from Mikulas that I'll be sending to Linus later this week (for v6.8-rc6). Those changes required rebasing 'dm-6.9' because of conflicts, here is the dm-6.9 branch: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/log/?h=dm-6.9 So we'll definitely need to rebase your changes on dm-6.9 to convert dm-crypt and dm-verity over to your BH workqueue. Are you OK with doing that or would you prefer I merge some 6.9 workqueue branch that you have into dm-6.9? And then Mikulas and I work to make the required DM target conversion changes? However you'd like to do it: please let me know where you have the latest 6.9 code the adds BH workqueue (and if you have DM target conversion code that reflects your latest). Thanks, Mike
