[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131128091358.GH10022@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:13:58 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: zhang.yi20@....com.cn, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: exec: avoid propagating PF_NO_SETAFFINITY into
userspace child
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:31:17PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:07:03AM +0800, zhang.yi20@....com.cn wrote:
> > Userspace process doesn't want the PF_NO_SETAFFINITY, but its parent may be
> > a kernel worker thread which has PF_NO_SETAFFINITY set, and this worker thread
> > can do kernel_thread() to create the child.
> > Clearing this flag in usersapce child to enable its migrating capability.
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <zhang.yi20@....com.cn>
>
> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
>
> cc'ing Ingo and Peter. Ingo, I think this one doesn't really suit the
> workqueue tree. Can you please pick this one up w/ Oleg's ack added
> and stable cc'd? The original patch is
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1602429/raw
So I don't get the problem; aren't all usermode helper thingies spawned
by the khelper task, which doesn't have PG_NO_SETAFFINITY set?
So how come this is a problem?
The Changelog is not explaining anything much -- so no I will not take
this patch.
--
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