Re: [RFC 09/16] kgr: mark task_safe in some kthreads

[Tejun Heo]

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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/