[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1318342087.14615.5.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:08:07 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] cpusets, cgroups: disallow attaching kthreadd
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 09:43 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Yes, I think we need something like this. wq workers were using
> PF_THREAD_BOUND to prevent diddling from userland which made some
> unhappy.
But that can be properly fixed.
> Maybe we need a flag to properly indicate "don't diddle with
> this thread from userland"? But, then, mainline kernel wouldn't need
> the current PF_THREAD_BOUND at all. Peter, Steven, what do you think?
Strict per-cpu affinity that is needed for correctness and disallows
sched_setaffinity() is something entirely different from not being
allowed to put something in a cgroup.
As to not allowing to put in a cgroup thing, is there anything other
than kthreadd for which we need to enforce that? So far I've mostly
treated it like: root can do stupid things, this is one of them, don't
do that then.
I don't think its horribly bad to change the affinity mask of kthreadd,
if a sibling kthread needs a specific affinity it should set that and
override whatever it inherits. If it runs with the default, its a neat
way of setting that.
--
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