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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
