linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/35] autonuma: introduce kthread_bind

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1338295753.26856.60.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 29 May 2012 14:49:13 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>, Dan Smith <danms@...ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Bharata B Rao <bharata.rao@...il.com>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/35] autonuma: introduce kthread_bind_node()

On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 19:02 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>  /**
> + * kthread_bind_node - bind a just-created kthread to the CPUs of a node.
> + * @p: thread created by kthread_create().
> + * @nid: node (might not be online, must be possible) for @k to run on.
> + *
> + * Description: This function is equivalent to set_cpus_allowed(),
> + * except that @nid doesn't need to be online, and the thread must be
> + * stopped (i.e., just returned from kthread_create()).
> + */
> +void kthread_bind_node(struct task_struct *p, int nid)
> +{
> +       /* Must have done schedule() in kthread() before we set_task_cpu */
> +       if (!wait_task_inactive(p, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)) {
> +               WARN_ON(1);
> +               return;
> +       }
> +
> +       /* It's safe because the task is inactive. */
> +       do_set_cpus_allowed(p, cpumask_of_node(nid));
> +       p->flags |= PF_THREAD_BOUND;

No, I've said before, this is wrong. You should only ever use
PF_THREAD_BOUND when its strictly per-cpu. Moving the your numa threads
to a different node is silly but not fatal in any way.

> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kthread_bind_node); 


--
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/