On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 08:58:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Maybe what we should do instead is to have something like this on RCU > > kthread init: > > > > cpumask_var_t gp_kthread_mask; > > > > if (alloc_cpumask_var(gp_kthread_mask, GFP_KERNEL)) > > return -EFAULT; > > > > cpumask_andnot(gp_kthread_mask, cpu_possible_mask, > > tick_nohz_full_mask); > > > > set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, gp_kthread_mask); > > > > free_cpumask_var(gp_kthread_mask); > > I was guessing that RCU's kthreads would not be the only ones that wanted > similar binding. But if you feel strongly about this, we could at least > start by placing it local to RCU as above.
Hmm, I don't feel well creating mirrored cpumasks (nor solely negation cpumasks in general). Also exposing that nohz gut is probably not a good idea either, except for RCU due to the sysidle stuff. Now you're right that we can expect that this non-nohz affinity stuff is going to be reused. Could it be housekeeping_affine(struct task_struct *tsk) maybe? -- 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/
