lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH]: exec: avoid propagating PF_NO_SETAFFINITY into userspace child
    On 11/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    >
    > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 02:31:52PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > > I _guess_ usermodehelper_init() should use WQ_SYSFS then, and in this case
    > > the user can write to wq_cpumask_store somewhere in /sys/.
    >
    > WTF is that and why are we creating alternative affinity interfaces when
    > sched_setaffinity() is a prefectly fine one?

    Because there is no a simple workqueue/thread connection, I guess.

    And I do not understand why do you dislike this.

    For example. Please note that with the new design we can even kill
    khelper_wq and the ugly kmod_thread_locker hack (just in case, I am not
    saying that the patch which added kmod_thread_locker was ugly ;).

    We can just use one of the system_ WQ_UNBOUND workqueues which has
    the "large enough" max_active.

    Oleg.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-11-28 16:01    [W:2.710 / U:0.624 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site