Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/kthread: Complain loudly when others violate our flags | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:20:38 +0200 |
| |
On Sun, 2011-10-02 at 18:15 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Anyways, I don't think I'm gonna take this one. There are some > attractions to the approach - ie. making the users determine whether > they need strict affinity or not and mandating those users to shut > down properly from cpu down callbacks and if we're doing this from the > scratch, this probably would be a sane choice. But we already have > tons of users and relatively well tested code. I don't see compelling > reasons to perturb that at this point. > So wtf am I going to do with people who want PF_THREAD_BOUND to actually do what it means? Put a warning in the scheduler code to flag all violations and let you sort out the workqueue fallout?
I didn't write this change for fun, I actually need to get PF_THREAD_BOUND back to sanity, this change alone isn't enough, but it gets rid of the worst abuse. This isn't frivolous perturbation.
> Also, on a quick glance, the change is breaking non-reentrance > guarantee. > How so? Afaict it does exactly what the trustee thread used to do, or is it is related to the NON_AFFINE moving the worklets around?
| |