Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 21 Apr 2021 15:33:04 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     joel@joelfernandes.org, chris.hyser@oracle.com, joshdon@google.com,
        mingo@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        valentin.schneider@arm.com, mgorman@suse.de
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] sched: Default core-sched policy
Message-ID: <YIApkMU+2jZHUVD7@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210401131012.395311786@infradead.org>
 <20210401133917.291069972@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210401133917.291069972@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 03:10:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Implement default core scheduling policy.
> 
>  - fork() / clone(): inherit cookie from parent
>  - exec(): if cookie then new cookie
> 
> Did that exec() thing want to change cookie on suid instead, just like
> perf_event_exit_task() ?

Talk to me about that exec() thing; I still think it's weird. Did we
just want to drop cookie on suid instead?