Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 10:03:33 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@intel.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Yu Fenghua <fenghua.yu@intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ioctl based CAT interface
Message-ID: <20151116090333.GL17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20151113163933.GA10222@amt.cnet>
 <20151113165100.GI17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151113172740.GA13490@amt.cnet>
 <20151113140438.3d8e2e11@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151113140438.3d8e2e11@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 969
Lines: 21

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 02:04:38PM -0500, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> I guess that what Peter is saying is that we don't want tasks
> attached to a reservation landing on a CPU where the reservation
> might be different or not existent at all.

Correct.

> This way, the ATTACH_RESERVATION command would fail if any
> of the CPUs in the cpumask are not part of the reservation.
> And then our code would have to be notified any time the process'
> affinity mask is changed (we either fail the affinity change
> or detach the process automatically from the reservation). Does
> this sound like a good solution?

No. We're not going to have random drivers muck about with affinity
masks, and most certainly not some manky ioctl.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/