# Re: \[RFC PATCH 00/18\] kthreads/signal: Safer kthread API and signal handling

- From: Tejun Heo \<hidden\>
- Date: 2015-06-09 06:15:07 
- List: linux-api
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2015/06/4511667
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-nfs/2015/06/4510097/t.md

```text
Hey, Peter.

On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 06:22:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> There's a lot more problems with workqueues:
> 
>  - they're not regular tasks and all the task controls don't work on
>    them. This means all things scheduler, like cpu-affinity, nice, and
>    RT/deadline scheduling policies. Instead there is some half baked
>    secondary interface for some of these.

Because there's a pool of them and the workers come and go
dynamically.  There's no way around it.  The attributes just have to
be per-pool.

>    But this also very much includes things like cgroups, which brings me
>    to the second point.
>
>  - its oblivious to cgroups (as it is to RT priority for example) both
>    leading to priority inversion. A work enqueued from a deep/limited
>    cgroup does not inherit the task's cgroup. Instead this work is ran
>    from the root cgroup.
> 
>    This breaks cgroup isolation, more significantly so when a large part
>    of the actual work is done from workqueues (as some workloads end up
>    being). Instead of being able to control the work, it all ends up in
>    the root cgroup outside of control.

cgroup support will surely be added but I'm not sure we can or should
do inheritance automatically.  Using a different API doesn't solve the
problem automatically either.  A lot of kthreads are shared
system-wide after all.  We'll need an abstraction layer to deal with
that no matter where we do it.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
```