[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061022035135.2c450147.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 03:51:35 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>
Cc: nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, akpm@...l.org, 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
Subject: Re: [RFC] cpuset: remove sched domain hooks from cpusets
Martin wrote:
> We (Google) are planning to use it to do some partitioning, albeit on
> much smaller machines. I'd really like to NOT use cpus_allowed from
> previous experience - if we can get it to to partition using separated
> sched domains, that would be much better.
Why not use cpus_allowed for this, via cpusets and/or sched_setaffinity?
In the followup to this between Paul M. and myself, I wrote:
> As best as I can tell, the two motivations for explicity setting
> sched domain partitions are:
> 1) isolating cpus for real time uses very sensitive to any interference,
> 2) handling load balancing on huge CPU counts, where the worse than linear
> algorithms start to hurt.
> ...
> How many CPUs are you juggling?
And Paul M. replied:
> Not many by your standards - less than eight in general.
So ... it would seem you have neither huge CPU counts nor real time
sensitivities.
So why not use cpus_allowed?
--
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