On 12/06, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2013, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > This probably means that Tejun's "default attributes which are inherited
> > by all workqueues" suggestion was right.
>
> There are workqueues that are required to run on specific nodes /
> processors. Those canno
On Fri, 6 Dec 2013, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> This probably means that Tejun's "default attributes which are inherited
> by all workqueues" suggestion was right.
There are workqueues that are required to run on specific nodes /
processors. Those cannot inherit these attributes and would need to be
u
On 12/05, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Perhaps, I simply do not know what the users want.
>
> We would like to control OS spawning of threads and restrict them to a
> limited set of cpus so that the other processors can do latency sensitive
> work with
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Perhaps, I simply do not know what the users want.
We would like to control OS spawning of threads and restrict them to a
limited set of cpus so that the other processors can do latency sensitive
work without being impacted by creation of kernel threads
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 09:39:03AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:37:45PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > I'm adding Christophe in Cc because he is interested in tweaking the
> > > affinity of call_usermodehelper for cpu isolation. This welcome
> > > cleanup conf
Hi,
On 12/05, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:37:45PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > OK, but I'd like to remind just in case, as Tejun pointed out this
> > patch is wrong ;)
> >
> > And "change the affinity of workqueue themselves" is not simple, but
> > we can make k
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:37:45PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/05, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > 2013/11/28 Oleg Nesterov :
> > > call_usermodehelper() does set_cpus_allowed_ptr(cpu_all_mask),
> > > this (and the comment) is misleading. We no longer have keventd_wq,
> > > and kmod.
Hello,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:37:45PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > I'm adding Christophe in Cc because he is interested in tweaking the
> > affinity of call_usermodehelper for cpu isolation. This welcome
> > cleanup confirms that we want to take the direction of being able to
> > change the
On 12/05, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> 2013/11/28 Oleg Nesterov :
> > call_usermodehelper() does set_cpus_allowed_ptr(cpu_all_mask),
> > this (and the comment) is misleading. We no longer have keventd_wq,
> > and kmod.c switched to khelper_wq a long ago.
> >
> > And more importantly, "unlike
2013/11/28 Oleg Nesterov :
> call_usermodehelper() does set_cpus_allowed_ptr(cpu_all_mask),
> this (and the comment) is misleading. We no longer have keventd_wq,
> and kmod.c switched to khelper_wq a long ago.
>
> And more importantly, "unlike our parent" is no longer true too,
> this thread wa
Hi Tejun,
On 11/29, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Hey, Oleg.
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 08:33:49PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > @@ -208,13 +208,9 @@ static int call_usermodehelper(void *data)
> > spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> > flush_signal_handlers(current, 1);
> > spin_unlock
Hey, Oleg.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 08:33:49PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> @@ -208,13 +208,9 @@ static int call_usermodehelper(void *data)
> spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> flush_signal_handlers(current, 1);
> spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> -
> - /* We c
call_usermodehelper() does set_cpus_allowed_ptr(cpu_all_mask),
this (and the comment) is misleading. We no longer have keventd_wq,
and kmod.c switched to khelper_wq a long ago.
And more importantly, "unlike our parent" is no longer true too,
this thread was created by WQ_UNBOUND worker thread
13 matches
Mail list logo
