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

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 11/28, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> * Is WQ_RESCUER actually necessary?  If not, WQ_RESCUER will be
>   dropped and the task bearing the name of the workqueue will no
>   longer exist.

WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, I guess. Probably not...

> * Is ordered execution necessary?  If not, it can be converted to
>   alloc_workqueue() or just to use system_wq.

I think no. This is the reason for kmod_thread_locker hack.

> khelper is special as its attributes get inherited to its children,
> so, yeah, we probably wanna keep that one's cpumask set to all.

And btw. Note ____call_usermodehelper()->set_cpus_allowed_ptr(cpu_all_mask).

Even if we change the affinity of the "khelper" worker threads this
won't restrict the user-space helpers.

I think this set_cpus_allowed_ptr() should die in any case?

Oleg.

--
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/