LVS
lvs-devel
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] ipvs: Replace use of system_unbound_wq with sys

To: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] ipvs: Replace use of system_unbound_wq with system_dfl_wq
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@xxxxxxxxx>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>, "David S . Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx>, Phil Sutter <phil@xxxxxx>, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, coreteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 09:36:56 +0200
On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 6:22 AM Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
>         Sorry that such change was delayed but there were
> many changes in IPVS for the last month. The last that may
> delay this patch is:
>
> v3 of "ipvs: avoid possible loop in ip_vs_dst_event on resizing"
> https://lore.kernel.org/lvs-devel/20260510104605.24218-1-ja@xxxxxx/T/#u
>
>         May be we have to wait this change to reach net and
> net-next. Also, we can reconsider which queue to use, these works
> resize hash tables and call synchronize_rcu(), should we switch to
> system_dfl_long_wq if such job is considered "long" ?

Hello Julian,

Thanks for letting me know.

Yes, if it is considered long we can switch to the long unbound version.
I will prepare the v2 with this change.

Thanks!

--

Marco Crivellari

SUSE Labs


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>