[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120615015331.GC12624@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:53:31 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 2/5] smpboot: Provide infrastructure for percpu
hotplug threads
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:17:28AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:08 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:56 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > If it's just a spurious wakeup then it goes back to sleep right away
> > > as nothing cleared the park bit.
> >
> > Your spurious wakeup will have destroyed the binding though. So you need
> > to be careful.
>
> We should probably do something like the below..
>
> TJ does this wreck workqueues? Its somewhat 'creative' in that regard
> and really wants fixing.
>
> ---
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -5018,6 +5018,8 @@ void do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_str
>
> cpumask_copy(&p->cpus_allowed, new_mask);
> p->nr_cpus_allowed = cpumask_weight(new_mask);
> + if (p->nr_cpus_allowed != 1)
> + p->flags &= ~PF_THREAD_BOUND;
The only reason wq workers use PF_THREAD_BOUND is to prevent userland
from mucking with cpus_allowed, so the above wouldn't break anything
in itself although userland would be able to wreck it afterwards.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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