Re: [PATCH]: exec: avoid propagating PF_NO_SETAFFINITY intouserspace child

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:53:25AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 03:43:59PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 03:31:45PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Sure, we absolutely must set it for per-cpu workqueues (and their
> > > workers) otherwise we cannot guarantee correctness. Same for per-node if
> > > we have that.
> > 
> > On that, the per-node thing is debatable. There's no correctness issues
> > with per-node stuff as we have with per-cpu storage.
> > 
> > And if there's no correctness implications we should not force things.
> 
> That's true iff you confine the "correctness" to not crashing.  That's
> an extremely narrow definition tho and most will argue against that.

Do you have a better definition that doesn't get in the way of people
wanting to do actual work?

So far I just see you breaking existing setups because you don't want to
support things that work perfectly well.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/