Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:34:02 -0600 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation |
| |
David, responding to pj, responding to ...: > > > > Move the watchdog/0 thread to a cpuset that doesn't have access to cpu 0. > > > > I still don't understand ... you must have some context in mind that > > I've spaced out ... I can't even tell if that is a statement or a > > question. > > > > You said that you weren't aware of any problems that could arise that are > fixed with this added check in set_cpus_allowed(),
Ok, now I understand your question - thanks.
I think your question arises from misreading what I wrote.
I did not say that I wasn't "aware of any problems that could arise"
I did say, as you quoted, from Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:37:28 -0600: > > I don't have strong opinions either way on this patch; it adds an error > check that makes sense. I haven't seen much problem not having this check, > nor do I know of any code that depends on doing what this check prohibits.
- This does not say no (none whatsoever) problem could (ever in the future) arise.
- This does say not much (just a little) problem had arisen (so far in the past).
Apparently, you thought I was trying to reject the patch on the grounds that no such problem could ever occur, and you were showing how such a problem could occur. I wasn't trying to reject the patch, and I agree that the check made sense, and I agree that such a problem could occur, as your example shows.
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214
| |