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:   Sun,  6 Aug 2023 00:45:52 +0100
Message-Id: <20230805234552.2556114-1-atomlin@atomlin.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZMwPZ7jRUrq6MjLn@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <ZMwPZ7jRUrq6MjLn@slm.duckdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

> Note that the name changes to the work item the worker is currently
> executing. It won't stay that way. Workers are shared across the
> workqueues, so I'm not sure "identify and account all kernel threads" is
> working as well as you think it is.

Hi Tejun,

Indeed. The point is that these kworker kthreads are easily identifiable.

> We can certainly rename them to indicate that they are rescuers - e.g.
> maybe krescuer? But, at the moment, the proposed reason seems rather
> dubious.

Personally, I would prefer "kworker/r-%s" and then include the specified
workqueue's name e.g. "kworker/r-ext4-rsv-conver". So the rescuer task's
name is more consistent with the current naming scheme.
I will send a follow up patch.


Kind regards,

-- 
Aaron Tomlin