From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jan 28 04:45:45 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057A2106564A
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:45:45 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rysto32@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com
	[74.125.82.182])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641738FC24
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:45:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by werm13 with SMTP id m13so420400wer.13
	for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:45:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=W2DUq4Z4po0gP/1y7y+GRUZydWgqTLTA3SnFmV5Q/dI=;
	b=SmIxwpLrvDQ2y3VuYDQ2Re/Tdxt6OY8fyUKH6W4luOc4R4ZCaYkMbTkGh7R+6Sz7+o
	WklSpybxupVR37NQdaEfn2aGaFdbtYwUOsGTRRqTkrl8FOUVtIqRBF1bEzufaZdye9qe
	eFRPhyzMmi1q/nrrG3OWnWcrMJdlfNbdau7Cs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.131.67 with SMTP id l45mr3855716wei.21.1327725943229; Fri,
	27 Jan 2012 20:45:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.106.129 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:45:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndDHsQRRNmrS7fsELEVohozWvvfaZ6eW_GipwHdjU9ZwxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFMmRNxF1uMOr39BbZkpPN=uM7G09dtcckAYw8ag6n6bi=FeOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ-FndDHsQRRNmrS7fsELEVohozWvvfaZ6eW_GipwHdjU9ZwxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:45:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFMmRNyPkwx3hRtraq6QL64kibAeV3W23FE34T1oDnf9SVFOYg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com>
To: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Kernel threads inherit CPU affinity from random sibling
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:45:45 -0000

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).