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;
From:   Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@atomlin.com>
To:     tj@kernel.org
Cc:     atomlin@atomlin.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] workqueue: Introduce PF_WQ_RESCUE_WORKER
Date:   Thu,  3 Aug 2023 21:19:14 +0100
Message-Id: <20230803201914.1802437-1-atomlin@atomlin.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZMqcGUderg8v5SEz@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <ZMqcGUderg8v5SEz@slm.duckdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

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

Hi Tejun,

I had a conversation with a colleague of mine. It can be useful to identify
and account for all kernel threads. From the perspective of user-mode, the
name given currently to the rescuer kworker is ambiguous. For instance,
"kworker/u16:9-kcryptd/253:0" is clearly identifiable as an unbound kworker
for the specified workqueue which can have their CPU affinity adjusted as
you mentioned before. I think if we followed the same naming convention
for a rescuer kworker then it would be more consistent. I'll send a patch
so it can be discussed further.


Kind regards,
-- 
Aaron Tomlin