From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757569Ab3K1JON (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 04:14:13 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:45180 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753465Ab3K1JOJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 04:14:09 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:13:58 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Tejun Heo Cc: zhang.yi20@zte.com.cn, Oleg Nesterov , lkml , Tetsuo Handa , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH]: exec: avoid propagating PF_NO_SETAFFINITY into userspace child Message-ID: <20131128091358.GH10022@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20131114114039.GA29277@redhat.com> <20131114115551.GA30824@redhat.com> <20131114115618.GB30824@redhat.com> <20131125121416.GB23829@redhat.com> <20131126180420.GA18172@redhat.com> <20131127183117.GB13098@mtj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131127183117.GB13098@mtj.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:31:17PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:07:03AM +0800, zhang.yi20@zte.com.cn wrote: > > Userspace process doesn't want the PF_NO_SETAFFINITY, but its parent may be > > a kernel worker thread which has PF_NO_SETAFFINITY set, and this worker thread > > can do kernel_thread() to create the child. > > Clearing this flag in usersapce child to enable its migrating capability. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi > > Acked-by: Tejun Heo > > cc'ing Ingo and Peter. Ingo, I think this one doesn't really suit the > workqueue tree. Can you please pick this one up w/ Oleg's ack added > and stable cc'd? The original patch is > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1602429/raw So I don't get the problem; aren't all usermode helper thingies spawned by the khelper task, which doesn't have PG_NO_SETAFFINITY set? So how come this is a problem? The Changelog is not explaining anything much -- so no I will not take this patch.