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 Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:53:25AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 03:43:59PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 03:31:45PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Sure, we absolutely must set it for per-cpu workqueues (and their
> > > workers) otherwise we cannot guarantee correctness. Same for per-node if
> > > we have that.
> >
> > On that, the per-node thing is debatable. There's no correctness issues
> > with per-node stuff as we have with per-cpu storage.
> >
> > And if there's no correctness implications we should not force things.
>
> That's true iff you confine the "correctness" to not crashing. That's
> an extremely narrow definition tho and most will argue against that.

Do you have a better definition that doesn't get in the way of people
wanting to do actual work?

So far I just see you breaking existing setups because you don't want to
support things that work perfectly well.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-28 16:21    [W:0.107 / U:0.676 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site