On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:37:52AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:

Hello, Paul.

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:21:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

quoted

quoted

The code was previously using both system_power_efficient_wq and
system_workqueue (for the expedited path).  I guess the options were
either using two workqueues or dropping POWER_EFFICIENT.  I have no
idea how big an impact this will make or whether it'd even be
noticeable but maybe it'd be worthwhile to mention that in the
description?

Good point!  How about if I change the last paragraph of the commit
log to read as follows?

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This commit also causes SRCU to use this new RCU-specific
workqueue_struct.  Note that SRCU's use of workqueues never blocks them
waiting for readers, so this should be safe from a forward-progress
viewpoint.  Note that this moves SRCU from system_power_efficient_wq
to a normal workqueue.  In the unlikely event that this results in 
measurable degradation, a separate power-efficient workqueue will be
creates for SRCU.

Sounds good.  Please feel free to add

 Acked-by: Tejun Heo [off-list ref]

Done, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul