[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yywgq+NUZH+JuJpF@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 10:45:31 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/7] sched: Persistent user requested affinity
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 02:32:10PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Waiman Long (7):
> sched: Add __releases annotations to affine_move_task()
> sched: Use user_cpus_ptr for saving user provided cpumask in
> sched_setaffinity()
> sched: Enforce user requested affinity
> sched: Introduce affinity_context structure
> sched: Handle set_cpus_allowed_ptr() & sched_setaffinity() race
> sched: Fix sched_setaffinity() and fork/clone() race
> sched: Always clear user_cpus_ptr in do_set_cpus_allowed()
I still think this is ordered all wrong. Esp. with that affinity context
doing the right thing isn't onerous at all.
So please, re-order this and fold all fixes back in so that it becomes
a sane series. Basically patches 5 and 6 shouldn't exist, they fix
issues created by the earlier patches.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists