[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FEDCB7A.1060007@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:36:26 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
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>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
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>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mauricfo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Don Morris <don.morris@...com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/40] autonuma: introduce kthread_bind_node()
On 06/28/2012 08:55 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -1792,7 +1792,7 @@ extern void thread_group_times(struct task_struct *p, cputime_t *ut, cputime_t *
> #define PF_SWAPWRITE 0x00800000 /* Allowed to write to swap */
> #define PF_SPREAD_PAGE 0x01000000 /* Spread page cache over cpuset */
> #define PF_SPREAD_SLAB 0x02000000 /* Spread some slab caches over cpuset */
> -#define PF_THREAD_BOUND 0x04000000 /* Thread bound to specific cpu */
> +#define PF_THREAD_BOUND 0x04000000 /* Thread bound to specific cpus */
> #define PF_MCE_EARLY 0x08000000 /* Early kill for mce process policy */
> #define PF_MEMPOLICY 0x10000000 /* Non-default NUMA mempolicy */
> #define PF_MUTEX_TESTER 0x20000000 /* Thread belongs to the rt mutex tester */
Changing the semantics of PF_THREAD_BOUND without so much as
a comment in your changelog or buy-in from the scheduler
maintainers is a big no-no.
Is there any reason you even need PF_THREAD_BOUND in your
kernel numa threads?
I do not see much at all in the scheduler code that uses
PF_THREAD_BOUND and it is not clear at all that your
numa threads get any benefit from them...
Why do you think you need it?
--
All rights reversed
--
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