Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-117748-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 08:52:50 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@antgroup.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] workqueue: Reorder the fields in struct
 workqueue_attrs
Message-ID: <ZgHIAjijs2_aaWMj@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20240308094253.2104-1-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
 <20240308094253.2104-3-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240308094253.2104-3-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>

Hello,

On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 05:42:51PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@antgroup.com>
> 
> So that its size is reduced from 40 to 32 in 64bit kernel, and it can be
> saved more when allocated with kmalloc() in alloc_workqueue_attrs().

Does this matter tho? Also, the sizing would be dependent on the number of
supported CPUs, right?

So, before, the order was - nice, cpumasks, affinity scope related stuff,
and then ordered flag. After, the cpumasks and affinity scope stuff are
mixed. Unless the saving is actually meaningful, I'd rather keep the current
ordering.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun