[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20131017105026.451ce2782d573c0b7dfbbc5d@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:50:26 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmod: Run usermodehelpers only on cpus allowed for
kthreadd
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:07:28 +0200 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> Couldn't we instead make kthread children (those created with kthread_create()) to inherit
> kthread initial affinity? Currently kthread's children have cpu_all_mask. We could change
> that behaviour. This way the initial kthread affinity could be inherited all along.
I'm wondering if it's clean/logical to tie usermodehelper affinity to
kthreadd affinity at all. It's certainly convenient, but they're
distinct concepts. What is the reason to not have a separate control
for usermodehelper cpus-allowed?
--
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