[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140515045011.GB3825@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 00:50:11 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc: Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jirislaby@...il.com, Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 09/16] kgr: mark task_safe in some kthreads
Hello, Mike.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 06:46:18AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > I think it'd be healthier to identify the use cases and then provide
> > proper interface for it. Note that workqueue can now expose interface
> > to modify concurrency, priority and cpumask to userland which
> > writeback workers are already using.
>
> You can't identify a specific thing, any/all of it can land on the
> user's diner plate, so he should be able to make the decisions. Power
> to the user and all that, if he does something stupid, tuff titty. User
> getting to call the shots, and getting to keep the pieces when he fscks
> it all up is wonderful stuff, lets kernel people off the hook :)
Do we know specific kthreads which need to be exposed with this way?
If there are good enough reasons for specific ones, sure, but I don't
think "we can't change any of the kthreads because someone might be
diddling with it" is something we can sustain in the long term.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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