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, [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> > > > > Acked-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]> > > > > 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 [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
