[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, 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?


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-28 17:01    [W:0.055 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site