[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100726195523.GC27644@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:55:23 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH repost] sched: export sched_set/getaffinity to modules
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 08:08:34PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/26, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> >
> > I have been testing out a similar patch that uses kernel_thread() without CLONE_FILES
> > flag rather than create_kthread() and then closing the files.
>
> !CLONE_FILES can't help. copy_files() does dup_fd() in this case.
> The child still inherits the files.
>
> > Either version should be fine.
>
> I think neither version is fine ;)
>
> exit_files() is not enough too. How about the signals,
As I said, signals are unimportant as we are using this
thread to base a worker on - it sleeps uninterruptibly.
> reparenting?
That's actually a feature: it lets us find out which process
owns the device using the thread by looking at the parent.
>
> I already forgot all details, probably I missed somethig. But it
> seems to me that it is better to just export get/set affinity and
> forget about all complications.
>
> Oleg.
--
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