[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4538E2C2.8060307@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 00:52:50 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
CC: akpm@...l.org, mbligh@...gle.com, menage@...gle.com,
Simon.Derr@...l.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dino@...ibm.com,
rohitseth@...gle.com, holt@....com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, clameter@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC] cpuset: add interface to isolated cpus
Nick Piggin wrote:
> set_cpus_allowed is a feature of the scheduler that allows you to
> restrict one task to a subset of all cpus. Right?
>
> And cpusets uses this interface as the mechanism to implement the
> semantics which the user has asked for. Yes?
>
> sched-domains partitioning is a feature of the scheduler that
> allows you to restrict zero or more tasks to the partition, and
> zero or more tasks to the complement of the partition. OK?
>
> So if you have a particular policy you need to implement, which is
> one cpus_exclusive cpuset off the root, covering half the cpus in
> the system (as a simple example)... why is it good to implement
> that with set_cpus_allowed and bad to implement it with partitions?
>
> Or, another question, how does my patch hijack cpus_allowed? In
> what way does it change the semantics of cpus_allowed?
That should be, in what way does it change the semantics of cpusets
in any way?
IOW, how could a user possibly notice or care that partitions are
being used to implement a given policy? (apart from the fact that
the balancing will work better).
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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