Re: [patch,v2] bdi: add a user-tunable cpu_list for the bdi flusherthreads

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Thu Dec 06 2012 - 13:01:53 EST


On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 05:26:26PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> I think it's a bit more involved than that. If you look at
> kthread_create_on_node, the node portion only applies to where the
> memory comes from, it says nothing of scheduling. To whit:
> /*
> * root may have changed our (kthreadd's) priority or CPU mask.
> * The kernel thread should not inherit these properties.
> */
> sched_setscheduler_nocheck(create.result, SCHED_NORMAL, &param);
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr(create.result, cpu_all_mask);
> So, if I were to make the change you suggested, I would be modifying the
> existing behaviour. The way things stand, I think
> kthread_create_on_node violates the principal of least surprise. ;-) I
> would prefer a variant that affected scheduling behaviour as well as
> memory placement. Tejun, Peter, Ingo, what are your opinions?

Hmmm... cpu binding usually is done by kthread_bind() or explicit
set_cpus_allowed_ptr() by the kthread itself. The node part of the
API was added later because there was no way to control where the
stack is allocated and we often ended up with kthreads which are bound
to a CPU with stack on a remote node.

I don't know. @node usually controls memory allocation and it could
be surprising for it to control cpu binding, especially because most
kthreads which are bound to CPU[s] require explicit affinity
management as CPUs go up and down. I don't know. Maybe I'm just too
used to the existing interface.

As for the original patch, I think it's a bit too much to expose to
userland. It's probably a good idea to bind the flusher to the local
node but do we really need to expose an interface to let userland
control the affinity directly? Do we actually have a use case at


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at