[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230705093752.GW4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 11:37:52 +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>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Brent Rowsell <browsell@...hat.com>,
Peter Hunt <pehunt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Use empty mask to reset cpumasks in
sched_setaffinity()
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 10:55:02AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Our OpenShift team has actually hit a problem with the recent persistent
> user provided cpu affinity change because they are relying on the fact that
> moving a task to a different cpuset will reset cpu affinity to the cpuset
> default which is no longer true. That is the main reason behind this patch
> to provide a way to reset cpu affinity to the cpuset default.
Where is the sched_setaffinity() in that story?
So somewhere this thing did a sched_setaffinity() and then starts
playing with cpusets. Instead of adding more sched_setaffinity() calls,
can't it just remove some?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists