[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1263977940.4283.821.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:59:00 +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 18:00 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 01/20/2010 05:50 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 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?
>
> It doesn't get moved directly. The CPU requests rescuer and rescuer
> will move itself to the CPU when it becomes idle. We can of course
> make the rescuer wake up some other thread and then go to sleep and
> the other thread can kthread_bind() the rescuer to the dying CPU but
> that exactly is what the set_cpus_allowed_ptr() does.
Ah, ok I thought it was all mitigated through the management thread.
--
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