[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1338313686.26856.164.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 19:48:06 +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 Tue, 2012-05-29 at 19:44 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> But it'd be totally bad not to do the hard bindings to the cpu_s_ of
> the node, and not using PF_THREAD_BOUND would just allow userland to
> shoot itself in the foot. I mean if PF_THREAD_BOUND wouldn't exist
> already I wouldn't add it, but considering somebody bothered to
> implement it for the sake to make userland root user "safer", it'd be
> really silly not to take advantage of that for knuma_migrated too
> (even if it binds to more than 1 CPU).
No, I'm absolutely ok with the user shooting himself in the foot. The
thing exists because you can crash stuff if you get it wrong with
per-cpu.
Crashing is not good, worse performance is his own damn fault.
--
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