[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 12:13:31 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
martin.lau@...nel.org, joshdon@...gle.com, brho@...gle.com,
pjt@...gle.com, derkling@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com,
dvernet@...a.com, dschatzberg@...a.com, dskarlat@...cmu.edu,
riel@...riel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/31] sched: Allow sched_cgroup_fork() to fail and
introduce sched_cancel_fork()
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:22:46PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> A new sched_clas needs a bit more control over forking. This patch makes the
^
(insufficient s's)
> following changes:
>
> * Add sched_cancel_fork() which is called if fork fails after sched_fork()
> succeeds so that the preparation can be undone.
>
> * Allow sched_cgroup_fork() to fail.
>
> Neither is used yet and this patch shouldn't cause any behavior changes.
Fails to explain why this would be needed and why that would be a good
thing. IOW, total lack of justification.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists