Hello, Mike. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 06:46:18AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > I think it'd be healthier to identify the use cases and then provide > > proper interface for it. Note that workqueue can now expose interface > > to modify concurrency, priority and cpumask to userland which > > writeback workers are already using. > > You can't identify a specific thing, any/all of it can land on the > user's diner plate, so he should be able to make the decisions. Power > to the user and all that, if he does something stupid, tuff titty. User > getting to call the shots, and getting to keep the pieces when he fscks > it all up is wonderful stuff, lets kernel people off the hook :)
Do we know specific kthreads which need to be exposed with this way? If there are good enough reasons for specific ones, sure, but I don't think "we can't change any of the kthreads because someone might be diddling with it" is something we can sustain in the long term. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
