From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx153.postini.com [74.125.245.153]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C0926B00C1 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:19:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <50C0E1B6.5060602@fusionio.com> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 19:19:34 +0100 From: Jens Axboe MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch,v2] bdi: add a user-tunable cpu_list for the bdi flusher threads References: <50BE5988.3050501@fusionio.com> <50BE5C99.6070703@fusionio.com> <20121206180150.GQ19802@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20121206180150.GQ19802@htj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: Jeff Moyer , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Zach Brown , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo On 2012-12-06 19:01, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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 > hand? We need to expose it. Once the binding is set from the kernel side on a kernel thread, it can't be modified. Binding either for performance reasons or for ensuring that we explicitly don't run in some places is a very useful feature. -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org