Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:42:21 -0500
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
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
Message-Id: <20080604144221.de09b709.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0806041232190.22192@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
References: <4845F864.8060102@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<6599ad830806040230l24bd1201y3cc0ea0273d835ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<6599ad830806040258h552e4623m5efae8202c5d026d@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080604122227.a092e70e.pj@sgi.com>
	<alpine.DEB.1.10.0806041149560.21323@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
	<20080604142540.6fa2bcc3.pj@sgi.com>
	<alpine.DEB.1.10.0806041232190.22192@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Organization: SGI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 854
Lines: 24

David wrote:
> No, because sched_setaffinity() can still move the threads.

Good point.

How about also adding this check (NULL mm and struct subset cpus)
to sched_setaffinity?

Granted, this pair of checks, in cpusets and sched_setaffinity,
is getting to be a little more work than the PF_* flag.

I guess one question would be how hard we want to work to avoid
consuming another PF_* flag.  I thought they were scarce, but I
might be wrong.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214
--
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/