[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071001111528.5487b4f4.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:15:28 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, menage@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dino@...ibm.com, cpw@....com,
mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuset and sched domains: sched_load_balance flag
Nick wrote:
> which you could equally achieve by adding
> a second set of sched domains (and the global domains could keep
> globally balancing).
Hmmm ... this could be the key to this discussion.
Nick - can two sched domains overlap? And if they do, what does that
mean on any user or application behaviour.
>From the cpuset side - this patch handles overlap by joining the 'cpus'
into one sched domain. If two cpusets with overlapping 'cpus' are both
marked 'sched_load_balance', then this patch forms a single, combined
sched domain.
As best as I can tell, you and I are actually in agreement in the
case that there is no overlap. If the several cpusets which have
'sched_load_balance' enabled have mutually disjoint 'cpus' (no
overlap), then my patch forms exactly one sched domain for each such
cpuset, having the same 'cpus'.
The issue is the overlapping cases - are overlapping sched domains
allowed, and if so, how do they affect user space?
--
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