On 03/16, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > --- x/kernel/kthread.c
> > +++ x/kernel/kthread.c
> > @@ -226,6 +226,7 @@
> > ret = -EINTR;
> > if (!test_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP, &self->flags)) {
> > __kthread_parkme(self);
> > + current->flags &= ~PF_IDONTLIKECGROUPS;
> > ret = threadfn(data);
> > }
> > do_exit(ret);
> > @@ -537,7 +538,7 @@
> > set_cpus_allowed_ptr(tsk, cpu_all_mask);
> > set_mems_allowed(node_states[N_MEMORY]);
> >
> > - current->flags |= PF_NOFREEZE;
> > + current->flags |= (PF_NOFREEZE | PF_IDONTLIKECGROUPS);
> >
> > for (;;) {
> > set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > --- x/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> > +++ x/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> > @@ -2429,7 +2429,7 @@
> > * trapped in a cpuset, or RT worker may be born in a cgroup
> > * with no rt_runtime allocated. Just say no.
> > */
> > - if (tsk == kthreadd_task || (tsk->flags & PF_NO_SETAFFINITY)) {
> > + if (tsk->flags & (PF_NO_SETAFFINITY | PF_IDONTLIKECGROUPS)) {
> > ret = -EINVAL;
> > goto out_unlock_rcu;
> > }
>
> Absolutely. If we're willing to spend a PF flag on it, we can
> properly wait for it too instead of failing it.
Or we can add another "unsigned no_cgroups:1" bit into task_struct,
not sure.
Anyway, I do not understand the PF_NO_SETAFFINITY check in
__cgroup_procs_write(). task_can_attach() checks it too, so cgroups
can't change the affinity. Imo something explicit like no_cgroups
makes more sense.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
