Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:21:17 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <egrosbein@rdtc.ru> To: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel threads inherit CPU affinity from random sibling Message-ID: <4F4772AD.5030406@rdtc.ru> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndD3366-uT191jMva3P-uL0DHi6nFeRfdsKA1hbJW7WqEA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAFMmRNxF1uMOr39BbZkpPN=uM7G09dtcckAYw8ag6n6bi=FeOw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndDHsQRRNmrS7fsELEVohozWvvfaZ6eW_GipwHdjU9ZwxA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMmRNyPkwx3hRtraq6QL64kibAeV3W23FE34T1oDnf9SVFOYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndD3366-uT191jMva3P-uL0DHi6nFeRfdsKA1hbJW7WqEA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
28.01.2012 20:22, Attilio Rao пишет: > 2012/1/28 Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com>: >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> I think what you found out is very sensitive. >>> However, the patch is not correct as you cannot call >>> cpuset_setthread() with thread_lock held. >> >> Whoops! I actually discovered that for myself and had already fixed >> it, but apparently I included an old version of the patch in the >> email. >> >>> Hence this is my fix: >>> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/cpuset_root.patch >> >> Oh, I do like this better. I tried something similar myself but >> abandoned it because I misread how sched_affinity() was implemented by >> 4BSD(I had gotten the impression that once TSF_AFFINITY is set it >> could never be cleared). > > Do you have a pathological test-case for it? Are you going to test the patch? I have the pathological test-case for it: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=165444 Eugene Grosbein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F4772AD.5030406>