[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131128151822.GD10022@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:18:22 +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 10:10:35AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 04:07:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:02:10AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > So far I just see you breaking existing setups because you don't want to
> > > > support things that work perfectly well.
> > >
> > > It doesn't work as explained multiple times in this thread.
> >
> > It used to.. just not on recent kernels. You know 'enterprise' latency.
>
> If you're talking about khelfper and wanna restore it, it really
> should be broken out into a separate kthread. It doesn't make any
> sense to implement that in the workqueue framework. Why would you
> implement a dedicated task inside a worker pool implementation which
> makes use of the said tasks? There's even kthread_work interface
> which pretty much provides workqueue-equivalent interface on top of a
> single task for cases like this.
That would only solve one of my problems. People want to contain the
unbound workqueues too.
--
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