[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: small migration thread fix
    On Friday 10 January 2003 14:11, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
    >> I'm not mingo, but I can say this looks sane. My only question is
    >> whether there are more codepaths that need this kind of check, for
    >> instance, what happens if someone does set_cpus_allowed() to a cpumask
    >> with !(task->cpumask & cpu_online_map) ?

    On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 03:29:33PM +0100, Erich Focht wrote:
    > The piece of code below was intended for that. I agree with Rusty's
    > comment, BUG() is too strong for that case.
    > #if 0 /* FIXME: Grab cpu_lock, return error on this case. --RR */
    > new_mask &= cpu_online_map;
    > if (!new_mask)
    > BUG();
    > #endif
    > Anyhow, changing the new_mask in this way is BAD, because the masks
    > are inherited. So when more CPUs come online, they remain excluded
    > from the mask of the process and it's children.
    > The fix suggested in the comments still has to be done...

    I don't have much to add but another ack and a "hmm, maybe something
    could be done". My prior comments stand. I'd be very much obliged if
    you provide a fix for the set_cpus_allowed() issue. I very much rely
    upon you now to provide scheduler fixes and optimizations for large
    scale and/or NUMA machines these days.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.019 / U:181.804 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site