Re: [PATCH]: exec: avoid propagating PF_NO_SETAFFINITY intouserspace child

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Thu Nov 28 2013 - 06:45:04 EST


On 11/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> 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@xxxxxxxxxx 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 <zhang.yi20@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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?

It has? khelper is a workqueue thread, this flag is set by create_worker().

And it does kernel_thread() (not kthread_create()) so the child gets this
flag too.

> The Changelog is not explaining anything much -- so no I will not take
> this patch.

Well, perhaps the changelog can be more verbose and clear...

Zhang, I'm afraid you have to send v3 ;)

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/