Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 9 Mar 2018 07:37:11 -0800
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
        security@kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] RCU, workqueue: Implement rcu_work
Message-ID: <20180309153711.GB2943022@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
References: <20180306172657.3060270-1-tj@kernel.org>
 <20180306173316.3088458-1-tj@kernel.org>
 <20180306173316.3088458-7-tj@kernel.org>
 <CA+55aFxnCAufp2e0uk55YYDgYcJAoJ+T+Ju7bWsneYo0eHHBeQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxnCAufp2e0uk55YYDgYcJAoJ+T+Ju7bWsneYo0eHHBeQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello, Linus.

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:30:29AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>  - can we split this patch up, so that if somebody bisects a problem
> to it, we'll see if it's cgroup or aio that triggers it?

Will do.

> So I'd like to either just make the thing always just use
> WORK_CPU_UNBOUND, or hear some kind of (handwaving ok) explanation for
> why something else would ever make sense. If the action is
> fundamentally delayed by RCU, why would it make a difference which CPU
> it runs on?

It was mostly for consistency with other interfaces.  Let's drop
queue_work_on() for now.  If ever necessary, we can easily add it back
later.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun