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-pmla...@suse.com Best Regards, Petr
