Hello,
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 04:39:26PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Either way, I am wondering if we can do something really trivial like
> the patch below. This way we can also remove the "tsk == kthreadd_task"
> check, and we do not need the barriers.
>
> Oleg.
>
> --- x/kernel/kthread.c
> +++ x/kernel/kthread.c
> @@ -226,6 +226,7 @@
> ret = -EINTR;
> if (!test_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP, &self->flags)) {
> __kthread_parkme(self);
> + current->flags &= ~PF_IDONTLIKECGROUPS;
> ret = threadfn(data);
> }
> do_exit(ret);
> @@ -537,7 +538,7 @@
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr(tsk, cpu_all_mask);
> set_mems_allowed(node_states[N_MEMORY]);
>
> - current->flags |= PF_NOFREEZE;
> + current->flags |= (PF_NOFREEZE | PF_IDONTLIKECGROUPS);
>
> for (;;) {
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> --- x/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> +++ x/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> @@ -2429,7 +2429,7 @@
> * trapped in a cpuset, or RT worker may be born in a cgroup
> * with no rt_runtime allocated. Just say no.
> */
> - if (tsk == kthreadd_task || (tsk->flags & PF_NO_SETAFFINITY)) {
> + if (tsk->flags & (PF_NO_SETAFFINITY | PF_IDONTLIKECGROUPS)) {
> ret = -EINVAL;
> goto out_unlock_rcu;
> }
Absolutely. If we're willing to spend a PF flag on it, we can
properly wait for it too instead of failing it.
Thanks.
--
tejun
