From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757913Ab3KHUG0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 15:06:26 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:61613 "EHLO mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757478Ab3KHUGZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 15:06:25 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 21:06:22 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andrew Morton , Mike Galbraith , Thomas Gleixner , Gilad Ben-Yossef , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Paul E. McKenney" , Mike Frysinger Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmod: Run usermodehelpers only on cpus allowed for kthreadd V2 Message-ID: <20131108200620.GC14606@localhost.localdomain> References: <20131016141326.2e517e18e4d8af880c97a282@linux-foundation.org> <00000141c36b03b6-2f9bd3de-d153-4359-901f-084aeb4c040d-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20131017122344.39d55db97c3923131bdf2831@linux-foundation.org> <0000014233722db9-cc00d0af-a5fa-4090-83bd-73c87377b892-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20131107225049.GC28130@localhost.localdomain> <0000014238407a1c-34e7bdbc-45c0-48de-a8a3-94a99f276044-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20131108163112.GA12853@localhost.localdomain> <0000014238ad0fb9-aa252280-8e44-48ac-a096-e6dee26e09ea-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20131108191235.GB12853@localhost.localdomain> <000001423945fde3-f846f403-58b9-4acd-a2b8-43b62991ce02-000000@email.amazonses.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000001423945fde3-f846f403-58b9-4acd-a2b8-43b62991ce02-000000@email.amazonses.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 07:52:37PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > I understand, but why not solving that from the workqueue affinity? We want to > > solve the issue of unbound workqueues in CPU isolation anyway. > > Sure if you can solve that with an unbound work queue then this patch is > not needed. Do you have a patch that addresses this issue in your > patchset? No. Sorry. > How far out is the merging of that patch?