From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/kthread: Complain loudly when others violate our flags
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:08:45 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1317355726.4588.48.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110930035501.GG10425@mtj.dyndns.org>
On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 20:55 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 05:17:34PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > For convenience and optimization, we are going to use the task's flag
> > PF_THREAD_BOUND as a way to know if a task is bound to a CPU or not. As
> > that is what the flag means.
>
> And I'm not sure this is a very good idea. Until now, PF_THREAD_BOUND
> meant "this task is explicitly bound to the current affinity (whatever
> it is) and thus it shouldn't be manipulated by third party".
That's exactly what we want it to mean. Not manipulated by workqueue or
anyone else. We don't plan on setting this flag if a task just happens
to have only one CPU in its affinity. We only set this flag if the task
is bounded to a CPU for good. When we see this flag set, we can therefor
assume that it will not migrate!
> The
> suggested change makes the flag much less orthogonal and useful. How
> much of convenience and optimization are we talking about?
>
Enough to not have to manually pin the task to the cpu at every lock.
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-30 4:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-27 21:17 Steven Rostedt
2011-09-28 0:22 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-30 3:48 ` Tejun Heo
2011-09-30 4:05 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-30 4:14 ` Tejun Heo
2011-09-30 8:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-30 8:55 ` Tejun Heo
2011-09-30 9:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-03 1:15 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-03 10:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-07 1:40 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-03 10:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-03 13:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-10-03 10:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-30 9:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-30 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-30 9:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-03 1:22 ` Tejun Heo
2011-09-30 3:55 ` Tejun Heo
2011-09-30 4:08 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2011-09-30 4:28 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1317355726.4588.48.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®