On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 02:31:52PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 11/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:45:42PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > It has? khelper is a workqueue thread, this flag is set by > > > create_worker(). > > > > > > And it does kernel_thread() (not kthread_create()) so the child gets this > > > flag too. > > > > Urgh, but that's still completely wrong. khelper is a singlethread > > workqueue, those should be unbound and therefore should not have this > > flag set at all. > > Well. This is debatable, but I leave this to you and Tejun ;)
How can that be debatable? I don't see a single argument in favour of doing that; its plain ridiculous. > > In fact, I know people want to set affinity on khelper > > This is not that simple. Note that khelper itself is the rescuer thread, > it doesn't not process the works. There are other kworker/u* threads which > run the work queued on khelper_wq. There is a pool of threads. That's just fucked. WTF does singlethreaded mean then? A single parent process for all usermode helpers makes so much sense; not doing it is just weird. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
