[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1263977401.4283.819.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:50:01 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.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()
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 17:35 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 01/19/2010 05:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 10:07 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >>
> >> It's also necessary to guarantee forward progress during CPU_DOWN.
> >> The problem with kthread_bind() is that it's not synchronized against
> >> CPU hotplug operations. It needs outer synchronization like calling
> >> it directly from CPU_DOWN_PREP. I guess it's doable but I think it
> >> would be better to simply share the backend implementation between
> >> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() and kthread_bind().
> >
> > OK, so you're saying you need to migrate the rescue thread during
> > cpu-down. That thread is guaranteed sleeping right,
>
> No, it's not. It might have been tasked to process works from other
> CPUs.
OK, so maybe I'm confused, but in general the workqueue thing needs to
ensure work affinity, right? So why can we move the rescue thread while
its processing another CPU's works?
--
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