From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932469Ab2DTPtj (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:49:39 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:54069 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753058Ab2DTPti (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:49:38 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch 00/18] SMP: Boot and CPU hotplug refactoring - Part 1 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Tejun Heo Cc: Thomas Gleixner , LKML , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Rusty Russell , "Paul E. McKenney" , Ingo Molnar , "Srivatsa S. Bhat" , David Rientjes In-Reply-To: <20120420154202.GB32324@google.com> References: <20120420122120.097464672@linutronix.de> <1334928098.2463.56.camel@laptop> <20120420154202.GB32324@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:49:24 +0200 Message-ID: <1334936964.2463.66.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 08:42 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > I'm still leaning towards restricting kthreadd and any PF_THREAD_BOUND > threads in the root cgroup. I'd definitely agree with restricting those. > I'm not sure about !BOUND kthreads tho. > It doesn't make sense for the most part but there are cases > (e.g. crypto kthreads) which might make some sense. > Agreed as well. There are a few nasty corner cases with unbound workqueues vs allowing cgroups (as how to place new worker threads correctly etc..). Sorting that is a 'fun' next problem. Could we merge the kthreadd/PF_THREAD_BOUND restriction? You've got my ACK and I'm fairly sure tglx will ACK it as well.