Messages in this thread | | | From | Aaron Tomlin <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Introduce PF_WQ_RESCUE_WORKER | Date | Tue, 1 Aug 2023 11:04:20 +0100 |
| |
> Is the implication that PF_flags are considered ABI? We've been changing > them quite a bit over the years.
Hi Peter, Tejun,
I never assumed they were.
In this context, one should always check the Linux kernel source code first i.e. do not assume what is exported via /proc/[PID]/stat will be stable/or consistent between releases.
> Also, while we have a few spare bits atm, we used to be nearly out for a > while, and I just don't think this is sane usage of them. We don't use PF > flags just for userspace.
Fair statement.
Albeit, I suspect it would still be useful for user-mode to easily differentiate between a kworker and a rescuer kworker. According to create_worker(), we do make it clear the difference between a CPU-specific and unbound kworker by way of the task's name. Looking at init_rescuer() a rescuer kworker is simply given the name of its workqueue. Would you consider modifying the rescuer's task's name so it is prefixed with "kworker/r-%s" and then include the workqueue's name e.g. "kworker/r-ext4-rsv-conver" acceptable?
Kind regards, -- Aaron Tomlin
| |