[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131128160731.GA15000@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:07:31 +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, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 11/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > So there's three useful parts to having a single parent task:
> >
> > - its a task so you can change the entire task attribute set; current
> > and future.
>
> You can't change, say, its fs->root.
>
> OK, OK, this is almost off-topic, I am just trying to say that
> (perhaps) in the longer term we might want even more than just
> a dedicated kernel thread.
>
> > - new children will automatically get the desired attributes.
>
> yes,
>
> > - all children are easily identified by virtual of being children of
> > said parent process.
>
> Well, UMH_WAIT_PROC won't work in this case, or it will be "single-threaded"
> too. OK, this is probably solvable, but nontrivial. In this case "khelper"
> should act as a /sbin/init for user-mode helpers.
But I'm afraid I got lost...
I interpreted "having a single parent task" as "parent of all usermode
helpers".
If you actually meant that every wq thread should have a parent which
represents the workqueue, well, I disagree but I leave this to you and
Tejun again ;)
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