[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1201603816.28547.94.camel@lappy>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:50:16 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sgrubb@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
ghaskins@...ell.com, dmitry.adamushko@...il.com,
tong.n.li@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de, menage@...gle.com,
rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: scheduler scalability - cgroups, cpusets and load-balancing
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 04:01 -0600, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> > Also the RT load-balance needs to become aware of such these sets, I
> > think Paul J and Steven once talked about it, but can't quite remember
> > where that ended
>
> See further the thread:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/22/400
>
> (I don't remember where it ended up either; probably nowhere.
> I'm just passing on the link, before doing any reading or thinking.)
Thanks for the link. Yes I think your last suggestion of creating
rt-domains ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/23/419 ) is a good one.
Upon cpuset changes we could then look for the largest disjoint set and
hang the rt balance code from that.
--
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