linux-kernel - Re: [patch] sched: fix sched-domains partitioning by cpusets

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071003072051.GD2619@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:20:51 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Cc:	nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	menage@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dino@...ibm.com,
	cpw@....com
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: fix sched-domains partitioning by cpusets


* Paul Jackson <pj@....com> wrote:

> Batch schedulers need to be able to specify where they need load 
> balancing and where they don't, and they can't use the 'cpu_exclusive' 
> flag.  The defining characteristic of 'cpu_exclusive' is no overlap of 
> CPUs with sibling cpusets.  That is incompatible with their needs.
> 
> Therefore, they need a different flag.
> 
> I must NAQ this patch, and I'm surprised to see Nick propose it again, 
> as I thought he had already agreed that it didn't suffice.

ok. Then lets go back to the original plan: your two patches and the new 
flag. Nick?

	Ingo
-
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/