Hello,
This looks great to me in general.
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 06:04:25PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index b8b541caed48..418d99ff8325 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -3863,10 +3863,16 @@ static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
> struct workqueue_struct *wq = pwq->wq;
> bool freezable = wq->flags & WQ_FREEZABLE;
> unsigned long flags;
> + int new_max_active;
>
> - /* for @wq->saved_max_active */
> + /* for @wq->saved_max_active and @wq->flags */
> lockdep_assert_held(&wq->mutex);
>
> + if (wq->flags & __WQ_PAUSED)
> + new_max_active = 0;
> + else
> + new_max_active = wq->saved_max_active;
Nothing is using new_max_active and I think we can probably combine this
with the freezing test.
> +void __workqueue_pause_resume(struct workqueue_struct *wq, bool pause)
> +{
> + struct pool_workqueue *pwq;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
> + if (pause)
> + wq->flags |= __WQ_PAUSED;
> + else
> + wq->flags &= ~__WQ_PAUSED;
> +
> + for_each_pwq(pwq, wq)
> + pwq_adjust_max_active(pwq);
> + mutex_unlock(&wq->mutex);
> +
> + if (pause)
> + flush_workqueue(wq);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__workqueue_pause_resume);
I'd just make pause and resume separate functions. The sharing ratio doesn't
seem that high.
Thanks.
--
tejun
