kthread: don't abuse kthread_create_on_cpu() in __kthread_create_worker()
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 Latest1 patch 2 repliesIn review
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
| # | Subject and files | Size | Replies | Applied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/1 | kthread: don't abuse kthread_create_on_cpu() in __kthread_create_worker()kernel/ | +8 | 1 reply |
Reviews trailers per patch
The patch has a Reviewed-by or Acked-by.
| Patch | Petr Mladek |
|---|---|
| 1/1 | R-b T-b |
Trailers given in replies are filled; those carried in the patches from earlier versions are outlined with dashes.
Cover letter [PATCH 0/1] kthread: don't abuse kthread_create_on_cpu() in __kthread_create_worker()
Quoted 10 lines · Oleg Nesterov
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 tosmpboot.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?
Oleg.