From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S934322AbcKNLKB (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:10:01 -0500
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37440 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S932942AbcKNLJ7 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:09:59 -0500
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 12:09:55 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Roman Pen <roman.penyaev@profitbricks.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chunming Zhou <David1.Zhou@amd.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] kthread: don't abuse kthread_create_on_cpu() in
 __kthread_create_worker()
Message-ID: <20161114110955.GA32499@pathway.suse.cz>
References: <20161026141359.GA6893@redhat.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610261650260.4983@nanos>
 <20161026155155.GA28832@redhat.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610262027110.5013@nanos>
 <20161028161106.GA8933@redhat.com>
 <20161031200729.GA19430@redhat.com>
 <20161031200823.GC19430@redhat.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611090908270.3501@nanos>
 <20161109172743.GB26446@redhat.com>
 <20161110171957.GA28264@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161110171957.GA28264@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu 2016-11-10 18:19:58, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/09, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Yes, agreed. Again, I'll write another email. Perhaps we should even keep
> > park/unpark exported and change them to avoid the races with exit/itself,
> > I dunno.
> >
> > My real point was, imo the KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU/__kthread_bind(kthread->cpu)
> > logic in kthread_unpark() should be private to smpboot.c/cpu.c.
> >
> > I'll send another patch tomorrow. kthread_create_worker_on_cpu() ab-uses
> > this logic too for no reason, but this is trivial.
> 
> After this change we are almost ready to kill kthread->cpu and KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU.
> (but the change itself doesn't depend on the previous patches).
> 
> Petr, why do we need kthread_create_worker_on_cpu() ? It has no users and
> I can not imagine any "real" use-case for it. Perhaps it can be removed?

kthread_create_worker_on_cpu() is going to have some users. For
example, patches for intel_powerclamp are already flying around,
see
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1476707572-32215-3-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com

Best Regards,
Petr