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;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:10:33 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@atomlin.com>
Cc:     peterz@infradead.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] workqueue: Introduce PF_WQ_RESCUE_WORKER
Message-ID: <ZMqcGUderg8v5SEz@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <ZMhFUbL42Ycyc2tI@slm.duckdns.org>
 <20230801105301.952042-1-atomlin@atomlin.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230801105301.952042-1-atomlin@atomlin.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 11:53:01AM +0100, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> > You really shouldn't be setting affinities on kworkers manually. There's
> > no way of knowing which kworker is going to execute which workqueue.
> > Please use the attributes API and sysfs interface to modify per-workqueue
> > worker attributes. If that's not sufficient and you need finer grained
> > control, the right thing to do is using kthread_worker which gives you a
> > dedicated kthread that you can manipulate as appropriate.
> 
> I completely agree. Each kworker has PF_NO_SETAFFINITY applied anyway.
> If I understand correctly, only an unbound kworker can have their CPU
> affinity modified via sysfs. The objective of this series was to easily
> identify a rescuer kworker from user-mode.

But why do you need to identify rescue workers? What are you trying to
achieve?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun