[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0806041149560.21323@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
cc: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, miaox@...fujitsu.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpusets: update tasks' cpus_allowed and mems_allowed
after CPU/NODE offline/online
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Do we need a new PF_* flag for this? Perhaps one can test for this
> by examining the currently available properties of tasks. Would it
> be sufficient to look for kernel threads (NULL mm_struct) whose
> cpus_allowed is a strict subset of the online CPUs?
>
That would only identify kthreads that have been created with a subsequent
call to set_cpus_allowed() or kthread_bind().
The PF_CPU_BOUND change targets only the latter since there are kthreads,
such as kstopmachine, that can continue to manipulate their cpus_allowed
during their lifetime.
Other kthreads such as the scheduler migration thread and soft lockup
watchdog thread, however, always stay bound to a single cpu by use of
kthread_bind(). These are the tasks that get the PF_CPU_BOUND flag and
cannot be rebound via set_cpus_allowed() because of their negative
effects.
David
--
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