linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpusets: update tasks' cpus_allowed and mems

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6599ad830806040258h552e4623m5efae8202c5d026d@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Jun 2008 02:58:09 -0700
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	miaox@...fujitsu.com
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>, "David Rientjes" <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpusets: update tasks' cpus_allowed and mems_allowed after CPU/NODE offline/online

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe we need to add a flag in the task_struct to mark which task can't be
>> unbound?
>
> Yes, something like a PF_CPU_BOUND flag that gets set in
> kthread_bind() and checked for in set_cpus_allowed() would be the
> right way to handle that. We have an internal change like that against
> an older kernel verison - I'll see if I can find someone to forward
> port it and send it in.

And in fact they already did, and sent it to lkml a few months ago:

   http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120419372032623

Paul
--
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/