From: "Michal Koutný" <email@example.com> To: Hao Xu <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Jens Axboe <email@example.com>, Zefan Li <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Tejun Heo <email@example.com>, Johannes Weiner <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Pavel Begunkov <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Joseph Qi <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] refactor sqthread cpu binding logic Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 18:48:08 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210902164808.GA10014@blackbody.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> Hello Hao. On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 08:43:20PM +0800, Hao Xu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > This patchset is to enhance sqthread cpu binding logic, we didn't > consider cgroup setting before. In container environment, theoretically > sqthread is in its container's task group, it shouldn't occupy cpu out > of its container. I see in the discussions that there's struggle to make set_cpus_allowed_ptr() do what's intended under the given constraints. IIUC, set_cpus_allowed_ptr() is conventionally used for kernel threads . But does the sqthread fall into this category? You want to have it _directly_ associated with a container and its cgroups. It looks to me more like a userspace thread (from this perspective, not literally). Or is there a different intention? It seems to me that reusing the sched_setaffinity() (with all its checks and race pains/solutions) would be a more universal approach. (I don't mean calling sched_setaffinity() directly, some parts would need to be factored separately to this end.) WDYT? Regards, Michal  Not only spending their life in kernel but providing some delocalized kernel service.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-02 16:48 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-09-01 12:43 Hao Xu 2021-09-01 12:43 ` [PATCH 1/2] cpuset: add a helper to check if cpu in cpuset of current task Hao Xu 2021-09-01 12:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: consider cgroup setting when binding sqpoll cpu Hao Xu 2021-09-01 16:41 ` Tejun Heo 2021-09-01 16:42 ` Tejun Heo 2021-09-03 15:04 ` Hao Xu 2021-09-07 16:54 ` Tejun Heo 2021-09-07 19:28 ` Hao Xu 2021-09-02 16:48 ` Michal Koutný [this message] 2021-09-02 18:00 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] refactor sqthread cpu binding logic Jens Axboe 2021-09-09 12:34 ` Michal Koutný 2021-09-03 14:43 ` Hao Xu
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20210902164808.GA10014@blackbody.suse.cz \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] refactor sqthread cpu binding logic' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).