[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1334402250.2528.68.camel@twins>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:17:30 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] cgroups: disallow attaching kthreadd
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 23:07 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2012, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > I submitted that, and it didn't fly. I like the generic exclusion
> > better, so I submit that for consideration.
> >
>
> [+akpm]
>
> The last time we went through this, it was left after Andrew had fixed it
> up when the cpusets version was merged in -mm without any disagreement
> from Peter who was cc'd and that version was acked both by myself and Paul
> Menage at https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/14/402. Andrew dropped it and
> asked for a repost since there was some on-going scheduler work going on
> in linux-next that caused that version not to apply. No follow-up was
> ever offered.
>
> Why have we now gone in a completely different direction again?
I really absolutely hate the cpuset only feature. The whole point of
kthreadd's existence is to provide a clean environment to spawn kthreads
from. Adding kthreadd to controllers violates this premise.
New and fresh kthreads should always get a bare minimum state, this
includes not being part of any particular cgroup.
--
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