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:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 12:35:06 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@atomlin.com>
Cc:     jiangshanlai@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Rename rescuer kworker
Message-ID: <ZNFxmnGHxV0z5gKA@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20230807220637.3203739-1-atomlin@atomlin.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230807220637.3203739-1-atomlin@atomlin.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 11:06:37PM +0100, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> Each CPU-specific and unbound kworker kthread conforms to a particular
> naming scheme. However, this does not extend to the rescuer kworker.
> At present, a rescuer kworker is simply named according to its
> workqueue's name. This can be cryptic.
> 
> From the context of user-mode, it can be useful to identify a rescuer
> kworker since their CPU affinity cannot be modified and their initial

I'm not necessarily against the rename but you can't, or at least shouldn't,
modify the cpu affinity of any workqueue worker. You don't know what that
worker is going to be executing even at the moment when the cpu affinity
change is committed, let alone in any future. Can you please drop that part
from the patch description? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun