From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CBAA1C84AA; Wed, 7 May 2025 17:36:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746639417; cv=none; b=t0S0dYXut9YhQIfOzBcoFPtelYOUW1XiMSH9dJH7YkOdLOvJ+R8n6gb64aTlELtO+VGz0bOBOUS0WbHlkjmmG56W7TIw12Ga3KqizMBf1QvSCvwsvO/H2vYCGngLOm3nCoZYYgfZMZVi7CIbP26JOQ7x/HOJscAYlxyTVSgPJSs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746639417; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cZgHgbEMslEH7d4qnp23P8CWCIcdt5/T8snXdHQXoIY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=XFcFyI67v/2baMh6+UbNa1kUMB5ETskJyUr65POruMmD0sWJaLibSmpEENzCMQt33FkLx50RvhhDiYwC8cOK465zIkmU08rHKpmoIpSIDdnIq0779VEhf1q5230O5AqQ1YdgMVIn43qUt2mmE/MdVrwgd8ldDmqRl8eeCyEiip0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=i5gBcLx/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="i5gBcLx/" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 724C9C4CEE9; Wed, 7 May 2025 17:36:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1746639416; bh=cZgHgbEMslEH7d4qnp23P8CWCIcdt5/T8snXdHQXoIY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=i5gBcLx/+W4OrIiWZ5mEORzBu+/MwAyuxa6sW1iOveMt1AbVE409oWBLaBe9YFT6L +BJmwOuTwy475nvJMOzU2yOj5Hq6UBEFzSeoP4Ug7AdjqzknAB3YSydz9nlR0xUtIh tPRgayVVB3L/rPkmPej9ZFQRBKHkVp5kyl+FkbcbfKPQcLB21rcVDj4HYs9SaegsFW Dm86+RQGjxIklt//kN0qITbrcCli74syRXK80c2pQIC5N5+n9RMI7EFYas36hWE+ML /XjfNG6TPa23jkpJ8JdWBhEFvqAeb3kffuOw//VVv2rwAtdnAITjB/KmfaO5SiBT7k ctJ0PuZ6PUrnw== Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 07:36:55 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Xi Wang Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , David Rientjes , Mel Gorman , Valentin Schneider , Waiman Long , Johannes Weiner , Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= , Vlastimil Babka , Dan Carpenter , Chen Yu , Kees Cook , Yu-Chun Lin , Thomas Gleixner , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= , jiangshanlai@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] sched: Support moving kthreads into cpuset cgroups Message-ID: References: <20250506183533.1917459-1-xii@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Hello, On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 10:23:24AM -0700, Xi Wang wrote: > Overall I think your arguments depend on kernel and application threads are > significantly different for cpu affinity management, but there isn't enough > evidence for it. If cpuset is a bad idea for kernel threads it's probably not > a good idea for user threads either. Maybe we should just remove cpuset from > kernel and let applications threads go with boot time global variables and > set their own cpu affinities. I can't tell whether you're making a good faith argument. Even if you are, you're making one bold claim without much substance and then jumping to the other extreme based on that. This isn't a productive way to discuss these things. Thanks. -- tejun