2023-10-25 18:17:50

by Daniel Jordan

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] padata: Simplify sysfs cpumask and sequencing logic

Hello,

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 10:06:40AM +0800, Wang Jinchao wrote:
> Utilizing the WQ_SYSFS from workqueue to support sysfs
> ======================================================
>
> Padata relies on workqueue, and since workqueue has already implemented
> support for cpumask through WQ_SYSFS, we can reuse this functionality
> and avoid redundant implementation.
> Link: https://docs.kernel.org/core-api/workqueue.html#affinity-scopes

Keeping the existing padata sysfs paths seems best, as mentioned in the
other thread.

> Using completion to ensure the sequencing of the 'serial()'
> ===========================================================

I responded in the other RFC thread.


Thanks.


2023-10-26 01:26:22

by Wang Jinchao

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] padata: Simplify sysfs cpumask and sequencing logic

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 02:17:32PM -0400, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 10:06:40AM +0800, Wang Jinchao wrote:
> > Utilizing the WQ_SYSFS from workqueue to support sysfs
> > ======================================================
> >
> > Padata relies on workqueue, and since workqueue has already implemented
> > support for cpumask through WQ_SYSFS, we can reuse this functionality
> > and avoid redundant implementation.
> > Link: https://docs.kernel.org/core-api/workqueue.html#affinity-scopes
>
> Keeping the existing padata sysfs paths seems best, as mentioned in the
> other thread.
Symlinks can serve both purposes, keeping the original path and simplifying the code.
I will incorporate this in the subsequent patches.
>
> > Using completion to ensure the sequencing of the 'serial()'
> > ===========================================================
>
> I responded in the other RFC thread.
>
>
> Thanks.
The extensive changes in RFC v1 indeed made it challenging to read.
Thank you very much for your patience. In RFC v2, I only wrote the
core logic instead of lengthy patches,making it a true RFC.
I've carefully considered your and Steffen's feedback,
which will be addressed in RFC v3.

Thanks.