From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/kthread: Complain loudly when others violate our flags
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:20:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1317637238.20367.6.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111003011506.GE31799@mtj.dyndns.org>
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?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-03 10:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-27 21:17 [PATCH] sched/kthread: Complain loudly when others violate our flags Steven Rostedt
2011-09-28 0:22 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-30 3:48 ` Tejun Heo
2011-09-30 4:05 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-30 4:14 ` Tejun Heo
2011-09-30 8:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-30 8:55 ` Tejun Heo
2011-09-30 9:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-03 1:15 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-03 10:20 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-10-07 1:40 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-03 10:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-03 13:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-10-03 10:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-30 9:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-30 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-30 9:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-03 1:22 ` Tejun Heo
2011-09-30 3:55 ` Tejun Heo
2011-09-30 4:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-30 4:28 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1317637238.20367.6.camel@twins \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.