[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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.


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-28 16:01    [W:0.101 / U:9.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site