From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [patch 00/18] SMP: Boot and CPU hotplug refactoring - Part 1 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:49:24 +0200 Message-ID: <1334936964.2463.66.camel@laptop> References: <20120420122120.097464672@linutronix.de> <1334928098.2463.56.camel@laptop> <20120420154202.GB32324@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:49079 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753058Ab2DTPtg (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:49:36 -0400 Received: from dhcp-089-099-019-018.chello.nl ([89.99.19.18] helo=dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net) by casper.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1SLG5X-000195-D8 for linux-arch@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:49:35 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20120420154202.GB32324@google.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: Thomas Gleixner , LKML , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Rusty Russell , "Paul E. McKenney" , Ingo Molnar , "Srivatsa S. Bhat" , David Rientjes On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 08:42 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > I'm still leaning towards restricting kthreadd and any PF_THREAD_BOUND > threads in the root cgroup. I'd definitely agree with restricting those. > I'm not sure about !BOUND kthreads tho. > It doesn't make sense for the most part but there are cases > (e.g. crypto kthreads) which might make some sense. > Agreed as well. There are a few nasty corner cases with unbound workqueues vs allowing cgroups (as how to place new worker threads correctly etc..). Sorting that is a 'fun' next problem. Could we merge the kthreadd/PF_THREAD_BOUND restriction? You've got my ACK and I'm fairly sure tglx will ACK it as well.