[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131128143411.GA10872@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:34:11 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>, zhang.yi20@....com.cn,
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 11/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 02:31:52PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > I _guess_ usermodehelper_init() should use WQ_SYSFS then, and in this case
> > the user can write to wq_cpumask_store somewhere in /sys/.
>
> WTF is that and why are we creating alternative affinity interfaces when
> sched_setaffinity() is a prefectly fine one?
Because there is no a simple workqueue/thread connection, I guess.
And I do not understand why do you dislike this.
For example. Please note that with the new design we can even kill
khelper_wq and the ugly kmod_thread_locker hack (just in case, I am not
saying that the patch which added kmod_thread_locker was ugly ;).
We can just use one of the system_ WQ_UNBOUND workqueues which has
the "large enough" max_active.
Oleg.
--
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