On 9/5/25 11:01 AM, Marco Crivellari wrote: > Currently if a user enqueue a work item using schedule_delayed_work() the > used wq is "system_wq" (per-cpu wq) while queue_delayed_work() use > WORK_CPU_UNBOUND (used when a cpu is not specified). The same applies to > schedule_work() that is using system_wq and queue_work(), that makes use > again of WORK_CPU_UNBOUND. > > This lack of consistentcy cannot be addressed without refactoring the API. > > system_wq is a per-CPU worqueue, yet nothing in its name tells about that > CPU affinity constraint, which is very often not required by users. Make > it clear by adding a system_percpu_wq. > > queue_work() / queue_delayed_work() mod_delayed_work() will now use the > new per-cpu wq: whether the user still stick on the old name a warn will > be printed along a wq redirect to the new one. > > This patch add the new system_percpu_wq except for mm, fs and net > subsystem, whom are handled in separated patches. > > The old wq will be kept for a few release cylces. > > Suggested-by: Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivell...@suse.com> > --- > kernel/module/dups.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/module/dups.c b/kernel/module/dups.c > index bd2149fbe117..e72fa393a2ec 100644 > --- a/kernel/module/dups.c > +++ b/kernel/module/dups.c > @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static void kmod_dup_request_complete(struct work_struct > *work) > * let this linger forever as this is just a boot optimization for > * possible abuses of vmalloc() incurred by finit_module() thrashing. > */ > - queue_delayed_work(system_wq, &kmod_req->delete_work, 60 * HZ); > + queue_delayed_work(system_percpu_wq, &kmod_req->delete_work, 60 * HZ); > } > > bool kmod_dup_request_exists_wait(char *module_name, bool wait, int *dup_ret) > @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ void kmod_dup_request_announce(char *module_name, int ret) > * There is no rush. But we also don't want to hold the > * caller up forever or introduce any boot delays. > */ > - queue_work(system_wq, &kmod_req->complete_work); > + queue_work(system_percpu_wq, &kmod_req->complete_work); > > out: > mutex_unlock(&kmod_dup_mutex);
The two work items queued by the dups.c code can run anywhere. I don't see a reason why they need to be bound to a specific CPU. If I understand the cover letter and its linked discussion correctly, the aim is to eventually move users to unbound workqueues unless they really need to use per-CPU workqueues. If it helps, I believe you can already update this code to use the new system_dfl_wq. -- Thanks, Petr
