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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox