[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched/kthread: Complain loudly when others violate our flags
    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?

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-10-03 12:25    [W:0.019 / U:6.100 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site