[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061022234152.baaf4624.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 23:41:52 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: dino@...ibm.com, akpm@...l.org, mbligh@...gle.com,
menage@...gle.com, Simon.Derr@...l.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rohitseth@...gle.com, holt@....com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] cpuset: add interface to isolated cpus
Nick wrote:
> These are both part of the same larger solution, which is to
> partition domains. isolated CPUs are just the case of 1 CPU in
> its own domain (and that's how they are implemented now).
and later, he also wrote:
> I think this is much more of an automatic behind your back thing.
I got confused there.
I agree that if we can do a -good- job of it, then an implicit,
automatic solution is better for the problem of reducing sched domain
partition sizes on large systems than yet another manual knob.
But I thought that it was good idea, with general agreement, to provide
an explicit control of isolated cpus for the real-time folks, even if
under the covers it use sched domain partitions of size 1 to implement
it.
--
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