Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 22 Jul 2022 13:12:36 -0400
From:   Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
        Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] dm-verity: optionally use tasklets in dm-verity
Message-ID: <YtrahFs5wgweeB7f@redhat.com>
References: <20220722093823.4158756-1-nhuck@google.com>
 <YtrTI/CJMoLihA/1@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YtrTI/CJMoLihA/1@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 22 2022 at 12:41P -0400,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

> We've been tying to kill off task lets for about 15 years.  I don't
> think adding new users will make you a whole lot of friends..

I don't have perspective on how serious that effort is. But ~2 years
ago DM introduced another consumer of tasklets in dm-crypt, see:
39d42fa96ba1 dm crypt: add flags to optionally bypass kcryptd workqueues

Given that, and other numerous users, is the effort to remove tasklets
valid? What is the alternative to tasklets?

Mike