Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Dec 2011 14:47:21 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [patch-final] Re: patch] cpusets, cgroups: disallow attaching kthreadd |
| |
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 12:13:10 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, David Rientjes wrote: > > > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, David Rientjes wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > > > cpusets, cgroups: disallow attaching kthreadd > > > > > > > > Allowing kthreadd to be moved to a non-root group makes no sense, it being > > > > a global resource, and needlessly leads unsuspecting users toward trouble. > > > > > > > > 1. An RT workqueue worker thread spawned in a task group with no rt_runtime > > > > allocated is not schedulable. Simple user error, but harmful to the box. > > > > > > > > 2. A worker thread which acquires PF_THREAD_BOUND can never leave a cpuset, > > > > rendering the cpuset immortal. > > > > > > > > Save the user some unexpected trouble, just say no. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> > > > > Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> > > > > Acked-by: Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org> > > > > > > > > > > Let's add Andrew to the cc so we can get it in -mm, I haven't seen it hit > > > linux-next yet. > > > > > > > Ping? Still missing from -mm and linux-next. > > > > Ping #2? >
Why am I being pinged about scheduler patches? My sole contribution to this one is to point out that "its"->possessive and "it's"->"it is".
Also, Peter has said
: I really think that if we want to restrain userspace from doing : something stupid we might as well do something that makes sense, and : that is mandate kthreadd stays in the root group at all times for : everybody.
which appears to be what the patch already did, so I'm confused again.
It's time for a fresh resend, IMO.
| |