Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:00:55 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH]: exec: avoid propagating PF_NO_SETAFFINITY into userspace child |
| |
On 11/28, Tejun Heo wrote: > > * Is WQ_RESCUER actually necessary? If not, WQ_RESCUER will be > dropped and the task bearing the name of the workqueue will no > longer exist.
WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, I guess. Probably not...
> * Is ordered execution necessary? If not, it can be converted to > alloc_workqueue() or just to use system_wq.
I think no. This is the reason for kmod_thread_locker hack.
> khelper is special as its attributes get inherited to its children, > so, yeah, we probably wanna keep that one's cpumask set to all.
And btw. Note ____call_usermodehelper()->set_cpus_allowed_ptr(cpu_all_mask).
Even if we change the affinity of the "khelper" worker threads this won't restrict the user-space helpers.
I think this set_cpus_allowed_ptr() should die in any case?
Oleg.
|  |