[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131128145755.GY10022@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:57:55 +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 09:53:25AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 03:43:59PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 03:31:45PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Sure, we absolutely must set it for per-cpu workqueues (and their
> > > workers) otherwise we cannot guarantee correctness. Same for per-node if
> > > we have that.
> >
> > On that, the per-node thing is debatable. There's no correctness issues
> > with per-node stuff as we have with per-cpu storage.
> >
> > And if there's no correctness implications we should not force things.
>
> That's true iff you confine the "correctness" to not crashing. That's
> an extremely narrow definition tho and most will argue against that.
Do you have a better definition that doesn't get in the way of people
wanting to do actual work?
So far I just see you breaking existing setups because you don't want to
support things that work perfectly well.
--
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