Re: [PATCH] char: xillybus: add WQ_PERCPU to alloc_workqueue users

[Marco Crivellari]

On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 3:53 PM Eli Billauer <eli.billauer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Marco,
>
> Thanks for this heads-up. Frankly speaking, I wasn't aware that the said
> calls to alloc_workqueue() implicitly bind the queue to a CPU, and this
> was never my intention. I agree that the better choice is an unbound
> queue, at least in this case.
>
> This seems to be an example for why the API change of alloc_workqueue()
> is a good idea.
>
> As for the patch itself, it perpetuates the incorrect choice, so I vote
> against. If anything, WQ_UNBOUND should be added, but since it's going
> to be the default (soon?), maybe just let it be, and let the planned
> change in the API rectify this.
>
> Thanks,
>    Eli

Hello Eli,

Considering this workload has no benefit being per-cpu, it's not a problem
send a v2 converting this with WQ_UNBOUND, in the meantime.
 I've done the same for other subsystems. :-)

Thanks!

-- 

Marco Crivellari

L3 Support Engineer, Technology & Product