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: <20080604144221.de09b709.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:42:21 -0500
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	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

David wrote:
> No, because sched_setaffinity() can still move the threads.

Good point.

How about also adding this check (NULL mm and struct subset cpus)
to sched_setaffinity?

Granted, this pair of checks, in cpusets and sched_setaffinity,
is getting to be a little more work than the PF_* flag.

I guess one question would be how hard we want to work to avoid
consuming another PF_* flag.  I thought they were scarce, but I
might be wrong.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.940.382.4214
--
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/