[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <479E4D74.8060800@qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:47:32 -0800
From: Max Krasnyanskiy <maxk@...lcomm.com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
CC: a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, srostedt@...hat.com, ghaskins@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions
Paul Jackson wrote:
> Max wrote:
>> So far it seems that extending cpu_isolated_map
>> is more natural way of propagating this notion to the rest of the kernel.
>> Since it's very similar to the cpu_online_map concept and it's easy to integrated
>> with the code that already uses it.
>
> If it were just realtime support, then I suspect I'd agree that
> extending cpu_isolated_map makes more sense.
>
> But some people use realtime on systems that are also heavily
> managed using cpusets. The two have to work together. I have
> customers with systems running realtime on a few CPUs, at the
> same time that they have a large batch scheduler (which is layered
> on top of cpusets) managing jobs on a few hundred other CPUs.
> Hence with the cpuset 'sched_load_balance' flag I think I've already
> done what I think is one part of what your patches achieve by extending
> the cpu_isolated_map.
>
> This is a common situation with "resource management" mechanisms such
> as cpusets (and more recently cgroups and the subsystem modules it
> supports.) They cut across existing core kernel code that manages such
> key resources as CPUs and memory. As best we can, they have to work
> with each other.
Thanks for the info Paul. I'll definitely look into using this flag instead
and reply with pros and cons (if any).
Max
--
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