[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20060821221437.255808fa.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:14:37 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>
Cc: akpm@...l.org, anton@...ba.org, simon.derr@...l.net,
nathanl@...tin.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cpusets not cpu hotplug aware
Nathan wrote:
> I think it would be more sensible for the default (i.e. user hasn't
> explicitly configured any cpusets) behavior on a CONFIG_CPUSETS=y
> kernel to match the behavior with a CONFIG_CPUSETS=n kernel.
Basically, in this situation, that would mean that the code that
masks a requested sched_setaffinity cpumask with the tasks
cpuset_cpus_allowed():
cpus_allowed = cpuset_cpus_allowed(p);
cpus_and(new_mask, new_mask, cpus_allowed);
would not be executed in the case of a kernel configured for cpusets,
when running on a system that wasn't using cpusets.
That's quite doable, and for systems not actually using cpusets, makes
good sense.
But it makes a bit of discontinuity in the system behaviour when
someone starts using cpusets. If someone makes a cpuset, then suddenly
tasks in the top cpuset start seeing failed sched_setaffinity calls
for any CPU that was brought online after system boot.
If there is some decent way I can get the cpus_allowed of the top
cpuset to track the cpu_online_map, then we avoid this discontinuity
in system behaviour.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists