[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:18:46 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, awalls@...ix.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, avi@...hat.com,
johannes@...solutions.net, andi@...stfloor.org,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/40] sched: implement __set_cpus_allowed()
Hello,
On 01/20/2010 05:35 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Wouldn't it make more sense to share the backend implementation
> between kthread_bind() and set_cpus_allowed_ptr() instead of making
> kthread_bind() a special case? The goals of the two functions are
> basically identical. Why have two separate implementations?
> kthread_bind() implementation as it currently stands is pretty fragile
> too. Making kthread_bind() backed by set_cpus_allowed_ptr() will make
> it more robust and less error-prone and all that's necessary to
> achieve that is modifying sanity checks.
I gave it shot. The interface is cleaner this way but I couldn't
figure out where to set PF_THREAD_BOUND as actual migration may happen
in different places and p->flags can only be set while it's known the
process is not running. At this point, I can't think of a better way
to do this than the current patch. :-(
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists