linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] workqueue: Allow modifying low level unbound workqueue cpumask

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1503121241520.7400@gentwo.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:42:44 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] workqueue: Allow modifying low level unbound workqueue
 cpumask

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015, Lai Jiangshan wrote:

> The per-nodes' pwqs are mandatorily controlled by the low level cpumask, while
> the default pwq ignores the low level cpumask when (and ONLY when) the cpumask set
> by the user doesn't overlap with the low level cpumask. In this case, we can't
> apply the empty cpumask to the default pwq, so we use the user-set cpumask
> directly.

I am wondering now why we have two cpumasks? A script can just interate
through the work queues if we want to set them all right? Then we do not
have to deal with the conflict between the settings in the kernel.
--
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/