Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-47410-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:07:57 -0500
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@lists.linux.dev,
	ignat@cloudflare.com, damien.lemoal@wdc.com, bob.liu@oracle.com,
	houtao1@huawei.com, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, allen.lkml@gmail.com, kernel-team@meta.com,
	Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] dm-verity: Convert from tasklet to BH workqueue
Message-ID: <Zbrg3aRFkgS7XCFE@redhat.com>
References: <20240130091300.2968534-1-tj@kernel.org>
 <20240130091300.2968534-9-tj@kernel.org>
 <c2539f87-b4fe-ac7d-64d9-cbf8db929c7@redhat.com>
 <Zbq8cE3Y2ZL6dl8r@slm.duckdns.org>
 <CAHk-=wjMz_1mb+WJsPhfp5VBNrM=o8f-x2=6UW2eK5n4DHff9g@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjMz_1mb+WJsPhfp5VBNrM=o8f-x2=6UW2eK5n4DHff9g@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 31 2024 at  6:19P -0500,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 13:32, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know, so just did the dumb thing. If the caller always guarantees
> > that the work items are never queued at the same time, reusing is fine.
> 
> So the reason I thought it would be a good cleanup to introduce that
> "atomic" workqueue thing (now "bh") was that this case literally has a
> switch between "use tasklets' or "use workqueues".
> 
> So it's not even about "reusing" the workqueue, it's literally a
> matter of making it always just use workqueues, and the switch then
> becomes just *which* workqueue to use - system or bh.

DM generally always use dedicated workqueues instead of the system.

The dm-crypt tasklet's completion path did punt to the workqueue
otherwise there was use-after-free of the per-bio-data that included
the tasklet. And for verity there was fallback to workqueue if
tasklet-based verification failed. Didn't inspire confidence.

> In fact, I suspect there is very little reason ever to *not* just use
> the bh one, and even the switch could be removed.
>
> Because I think the only reason the "workqueue of tasklet" choice
> existed in the first place was that workqueues were the "proper" data
> structure, and the tasklet case was added later as a latency hack, and
> everybody knew that tasklets were deprecated.

Correct, abusing tasklets was a very contrived latency optimization.
Happy to see it all go away! (hindsight: it never should have gone in).

Mike