Hello,
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 07:53:49AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2022/03/22 1:55, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > No, just fix the abusers. There are four abusers in the kernel and they
> > aren't difficult to fix.
>
> So, are you expecting that a change shown below happens, by adding WQ_MEM_RECLAIM
> flag to all WQs which may hit "workqueue: WQ_MEM_RECLAIM %s:%ps is flushing
> !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM %s:%ps" warning? Otherwise, __WQ_LEGACY flag will continue
> serving as a hack for suppressing this warning.
If you convert them to all of them in the flush chain to use
alloc_workqueue() w/ MEM_RECLAIM, the warning will go away.
> #define create_workqueue(name) \
> - alloc_workqueue("%s", __WQ_LEGACY | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 1, (name))
> + alloc_workqueue("%s", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 1, (name))
> #define create_freezable_workqueue(name) \
> - alloc_workqueue("%s", __WQ_LEGACY | WQ_FREEZABLE | WQ_UNBOUND | \
> + alloc_workqueue("%s", WQ_FREEZABLE | WQ_UNBOUND | \
> WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 1, (name))
> #define create_singlethread_workqueue(name) \
> - alloc_ordered_workqueue("%s", __WQ_LEGACY | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, name)
> + alloc_ordered_workqueue("%s", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, name)
But why are you dropping the flag from their intended users?
Thanks.
--
tejun
