Commit 0e62ea33 authored by Gao Xiang's avatar Gao Xiang

erofs: remove WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE flag from unbound wq's

The documentation [1] says that WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE is "meaningless" for
unbound wq. I remove this flag from places where unbound queue is
allocated. This is supposed to improve code readability.

[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/core-api/workqueue.html#flagsSigned-off-by: default avatarMaksym Planeta <mplaneta@os.inf.tu-dresden.de>
[Gao Xiang: since the original treewide patch [2] hasn't been merged
            yet, handling the EROFS part only for the next cycle. ]
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200213141823.2174236-1-mplaneta@os.inf.tu-dresden.de
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200731024049.16495-1-hsiangkao@aol.comReviewed-by: default avatarChao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarGao Xiang <hsiangkao@redhat.com>
parent ee4bf86c
...@@ -43,13 +43,13 @@ void z_erofs_exit_zip_subsystem(void) ...@@ -43,13 +43,13 @@ void z_erofs_exit_zip_subsystem(void)
static inline int z_erofs_init_workqueue(void) static inline int z_erofs_init_workqueue(void)
{ {
const unsigned int onlinecpus = num_possible_cpus(); const unsigned int onlinecpus = num_possible_cpus();
const unsigned int flags = WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE;
/* /*
* no need to spawn too many threads, limiting threads could minimum * no need to spawn too many threads, limiting threads could minimum
* scheduling overhead, perhaps per-CPU threads should be better? * scheduling overhead, perhaps per-CPU threads should be better?
*/ */
z_erofs_workqueue = alloc_workqueue("erofs_unzipd", flags, z_erofs_workqueue = alloc_workqueue("erofs_unzipd",
WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_HIGHPRI,
onlinecpus + onlinecpus / 4); onlinecpus + onlinecpus / 4);
return z_erofs_workqueue ? 0 : -ENOMEM; return z_erofs_workqueue ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
} }
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment