[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131128143857.GU10022@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:38:57 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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 Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:13:29AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > A single parent process for all usermode helpers makes so much sense;
> > not doing it is just weird.
>
> If we're gonna allow userland to play with the parent attributes,
> yeah, that'd make sense. I'm not sure whether that's an interface
> that we'd want to commit to tho? Do we really want to tell userland
> "there will always be a kernel task khelper and if you change that
> one's attributes all processes forked from it will inherit those
> attributes no matter what they are." I think we'd want something more
> specific cause that's a lot of commitment to things that we haven't
> carefully thought about.
It seems like a perfectly fine interface to me. And much preferable to
creating yet another weird interface to manage tasks.
--
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