[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:0.082 / U:0.908 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site