Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-20895-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 08:29:36 -0500
From: Audra Mitchell <audra@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Audra Mitchell <aubaker@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	raquini@redhat.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
	hirokazu.yamauchi.hk@hitachi.com,
	Laurence Oberman <loberman@redhat.com>,
	Donald Douwsma <ddouwsma@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue.c: Change workqueue to accept variable length
 name
Message-ID: <ZZ1KQN5SBvujlXF8@fedora>
References: <20231215193954.1785069-1-audra@redhat.com>
 <ZYSwieA7FeYLh5Ey@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <CA+bDH-v6T5vvyOwsphseHwgihdGQta7TZ9tOtt-Fnij92kvU6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZYXNMEXBnuumL3D6@mac.lan>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZYXNMEXBnuumL3D6@mac.lan>

On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 02:53:52AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 10:35:03AM -0500, Audra Mitchell wrote:
> > We have one concrete example from a Hitachi block device driver (notice the
> > 47a1/47a2 gets
> > cut off with the workqueue name):
> > 
> > Device                              Workqueue Name (24char zero terminated)
> > /dev/sd0279b080047a1   xfs-blockgc/sd0279b0800
> > /dev/sd0279b080047a2   xfs-blockgc/sd0279b0800
> 
> I see, so it's a combination of somewhat lengthy device names and then xfs
> adding a prefix to them. Neither is particularly long but the combination
> is.
> 
> > I can also imagine this issue being present with nvme devices, but the
> > request came from Hitachi.
> > I believe it would be up to the device driver to determine if the name can
> > be shortened and I've
> > included Hitachi requester on this email thread.
> > 
> > Alternatively, we could increase the size of the WQ_NAME_LEN, but it seems
> > highly likely we are
> > going to butt against the static size again in the future. We previously
> > had variable length names
> > and it seems (to me) to be the best long term path forward.
> 
> Can we just bump the length to 32 and trigger a warning if the requested
> name overruns? I want to provide some pressure to limit the length of the
> name so that it doesn't get too long over time. If folks bump into it and
> can't find a different way to deal with it, we can get bring back the
> subject.

Hey Tejun!

Hope you had a nice holiday. I just got back from a bit of a break and will
work on your suggestions this week. Thanks a bunch for your feedback!

- Audra