[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061021215436.09d03444.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:54:36 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
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 wrote:
> Well, it was supposed to be used for sched-domains partitioning, and
> its uselessness for anything else I guess is what threw me.
The use of cpu_exclusive for sched domain partitioning was added
later, by a patch from Dinikar, in April or May of 2005.
In hindsight, I think I made a mistake in agreeing to, and probably
encouraging, this particular overloading of cpu_exclusive. I had
difficulty adequately understanding what was going on.
Granted, as we've noted elsewhere on this thread, the cpu_exclusive
flag is underutilized. It gives cpusets so marked a certain limited
exclusivity to its cpus, relative to its siblings, but it doesn't do
much else, other than this controversial partitioning of sched domains.
There may well be a useful role for the cpu_exclusive flag in managing
sched domains and partitioning. The current role is flawed, in my view.
--
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