block/blk-zoned.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
This continues the effort to refactor workqueue APIs, which began with
the introduction of new workqueues and a new alloc_workqueue flag in:
commit 128ea9f6ccfb ("workqueue: Add system_percpu_wq and system_dfl_wq")
commit 930c2ea566af ("workqueue: Add new WQ_PERCPU flag")
The refactoring is going to alter the default behavior of
alloc_workqueue() to be unbound by default.
With the introduction of the WQ_PERCPU flag (equivalent to !WQ_UNBOUND),
any alloc_workqueue() caller that doesn’t explicitly specify WQ_UNBOUND
must now use WQ_PERCPU. For more details see the Link tag below.
In order to keep alloc_workqueue() behavior identical, explicitly request
WQ_PERCPU.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250221112003.1dSuoGyc@linutronix.de/
Suggested-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@suse.com>
---
block/blk-zoned.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-zoned.c b/block/blk-zoned.c
index 6a221c180889..bea817f3de56 100644
--- a/block/blk-zoned.c
+++ b/block/blk-zoned.c
@@ -1924,7 +1924,7 @@ static int disk_alloc_zone_resources(struct gendisk *disk,
goto free_hash;
disk->zone_wplugs_wq =
- alloc_workqueue("%s_zwplugs", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_HIGHPRI,
+ alloc_workqueue("%s_zwplugs", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_PERCPU,
pool_size, disk->disk_name);
if (!disk->zone_wplugs_wq)
goto destroy_pool;
--
2.54.0
On Thu, 04 Jun 2026 12:53:47 +0200, Marco Crivellari wrote:
> This continues the effort to refactor workqueue APIs, which began with
> the introduction of new workqueues and a new alloc_workqueue flag in:
>
> commit 128ea9f6ccfb ("workqueue: Add system_percpu_wq and system_dfl_wq")
> commit 930c2ea566af ("workqueue: Add new WQ_PERCPU flag")
>
> The refactoring is going to alter the default behavior of
> alloc_workqueue() to be unbound by default.
>
> [...]
Applied, thanks!
[1/1] block: Add WQ_PERCPU to alloc_workqueue users
commit: 7e712f292e7f01e91d09e83eb7b9526f77f66c71
Best regards,
--
Jens Axboe
On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 7:21 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2026 12:53:47 +0200, Marco Crivellari wrote:
> > This continues the effort to refactor workqueue APIs, which began with
> > the introduction of new workqueues and a new alloc_workqueue flag in:
> >
> > commit 128ea9f6ccfb ("workqueue: Add system_percpu_wq and system_dfl_wq")
> > commit 930c2ea566af ("workqueue: Add new WQ_PERCPU flag")
> >
> > The refactoring is going to alter the default behavior of
> > alloc_workqueue() to be unbound by default.
> >
> > [...]
>
> Applied, thanks!
>
> [1/1] block: Add WQ_PERCPU to alloc_workqueue users
> commit: 7e712f292e7f01e91d09e83eb7b9526f77f66c71
>
Many thanks!
--
Marco Crivellari
SUSE Labs
On 6/4/26 03:53, Marco Crivellari wrote:
> This continues the effort to refactor workqueue APIs, which began with
> the introduction of new workqueues and a new alloc_workqueue flag in:
>
> commit 128ea9f6ccfb ("workqueue: Add system_percpu_wq and system_dfl_wq")
> commit 930c2ea566af ("workqueue: Add new WQ_PERCPU flag")
>
> The refactoring is going to alter the default behavior of
> alloc_workqueue() to be unbound by default.
>
> With the introduction of the WQ_PERCPU flag (equivalent to !WQ_UNBOUND),
> any alloc_workqueue() caller that doesn’t explicitly specify WQ_UNBOUND
> must now use WQ_PERCPU. For more details see the Link tag below.
>
> In order to keep alloc_workqueue() behavior identical, explicitly request
> WQ_PERCPU.
>
> Link:https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250221112003.1dSuoGyc@linutronix.de/
> Suggested-by: Tejun Heo<tj@kernel.org>
>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Crivellari<marco.crivellari@suse.com>
Looks good.
Reviewed-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@nvidia.com>
-ck
On 2026/06/04 18:53, Marco Crivellari wrote:
> This continues the effort to refactor workqueue APIs, which began with
> the introduction of new workqueues and a new alloc_workqueue flag in:
>
> commit 128ea9f6ccfb ("workqueue: Add system_percpu_wq and system_dfl_wq")
> commit 930c2ea566af ("workqueue: Add new WQ_PERCPU flag")
>
> The refactoring is going to alter the default behavior of
> alloc_workqueue() to be unbound by default.
>
> With the introduction of the WQ_PERCPU flag (equivalent to !WQ_UNBOUND),
> any alloc_workqueue() caller that doesn’t explicitly specify WQ_UNBOUND
> must now use WQ_PERCPU. For more details see the Link tag below.
>
> In order to keep alloc_workqueue() behavior identical, explicitly request
> WQ_PERCPU.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250221112003.1dSuoGyc@linutronix.de/
> Suggested-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@suse.com>
Looks good.
Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
On 2026/06/04 18:53, Marco Crivellari wrote:
> This continues the effort to refactor workqueue APIs, which began with
> the introduction of new workqueues and a new alloc_workqueue flag in:
>
> commit 128ea9f6ccfb ("workqueue: Add system_percpu_wq and system_dfl_wq")
> commit 930c2ea566af ("workqueue: Add new WQ_PERCPU flag")
>
> The refactoring is going to alter the default behavior of
> alloc_workqueue() to be unbound by default.
>
> With the introduction of the WQ_PERCPU flag (equivalent to !WQ_UNBOUND),
> any alloc_workqueue() caller that doesn’t explicitly specify WQ_UNBOUND
> must now use WQ_PERCPU. For more details see the Link tag below.
>
> In order to keep alloc_workqueue() behavior identical, explicitly request
> WQ_PERCPU.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250221112003.1dSuoGyc@linutronix.de/
> Suggested-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@suse.com>
Looks good.
Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.