From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754835Ab1LFXxw (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:53:52 -0500 Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:54856 "EHLO mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753526Ab1LFXxv (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:53:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:53:47 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Andrew Morton , Mike Galbraith cc: Paul Menage , LKML , Tejun Heo , Li Zefan , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [patch-final] Re: patch] cpusets, cgroups: disallow attaching kthreadd In-Reply-To: <20111206144721.7b1d473d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: References: <1316758874.7393.2.camel@marge.simson.net> <4E7C2E7F.40307@cn.fujitsu.com> <1316762345.8168.4.camel@marge.simson.net> <1316770936.6641.11.camel@marge.simson.net> <1316775204.7562.9.camel@marge.simson.net> <1316788392.6544.33.camel@marge.simson.net> <1318224892.6161.45.camel@marge.simson.net> <1318233815.6527.5.camel@marge.simson.net> <1318925436.9641.23.camel@marge.simson.net> <1319001860.6222.34.camel@marge.simson.net> <20111206144721.7b1d473d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) 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 On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Ping #2? > > > > Why am I being pinged about scheduler patches? My sole contribution > to this one is to point out that "its"->possessive and "it's"->"it is". > It touches two areas and there's probably a counter argument on the otherside about wanting to apply cpuset patches, which typically go through -mm. It's a patch that, as the changelog indicates, fixes cpusets from becoming immortal if their set of tasks can never be emptied. Would you like the change separated into kernel/cpuset.c and kernel/sched.c portions each referring to each other? > Also, Peter has said > > : I really think that if we want to restrain userspace from doing > : something stupid we might as well do something that makes sense, and > : that is mandate kthreadd stays in the root group at all times for > : everybody. > > which appears to be what the patch already did, so I'm confused again. > Yes, that's what the patch does. I'm not sure that Peter's explanation above is any better than what Mike wrote in the changelog, though, the changelog states why allowing kthreadd to move to a cpuset is actually troublesome. > It's time for a fresh resend, IMO. > Mike, would you mind resending the patch for the fourth or fifth time? If not, I'll rebase it.