Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762422AbYFDTfN (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:35:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760370AbYFDTee (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:34:34 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:59021 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762112AbYFDTed (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:34:33 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to: message-id:references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=TJQafxt4j9EW1kR02XMNTlzfv5Af5kROY2021KxF3gHsHVW75XCRni+BUDYBnKGOz r2D2pK4MAp9EAsI4Ck5GA== Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:33:39 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Paul Jackson cc: menage@google.com, miaox@cn.fujitsu.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpusets: update tasks' cpus_allowed and mems_allowed after CPU/NODE offline/online In-Reply-To: <20080604142540.6fa2bcc3.pj@sgi.com> Message-ID: References: <4845F864.8060102@cn.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830806040230l24bd1201y3cc0ea0273d835ad@mail.gmail.com> <6599ad830806040258h552e4623m5efae8202c5d026d@mail.gmail.com> <20080604122227.a092e70e.pj@sgi.com> <20080604142540.6fa2bcc3.pj@sgi.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 862 Lines: 20 On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Paul Jackson wrote: > > That would identify both kthreads that have been created with a subsequent > > call to set_cpus_allowed() or kthread_bind(). > > Or do I misunderstand? > > If I am reading you correctly, then would it work to have a check in the > cpuset code (rather than in the lower set_cpus_allowed() routine), > where that check refused to move tasks out of the root cpuset if they > were (1) kernel threads (mm NULL) and (2) had cpus_allowed that were a > strict subset of the root cpusets 'cpus' (the online cpus). > No, because sched_setaffinity() can still move the threads. -- 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/