[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <479F06A4.BA47.005A.0@novell.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:57:40 -0700
From: "Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To: "Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>
Cc: <mingo@...e.hu>, <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
<rostedt@...dmis.org>, <menage@...gle.com>, <rientjes@...gle.com>,
<tong.n.li@...el.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, <sgrubb@...hat.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
<nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Subject: Re: scheduler scalability - cgroups, cpusets and
load-balancing
>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 7:12 AM, in message
<20080129061202.95b66041.pj@....com>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com> wrote:
> Peter, replying to Paul:
>> > 3) you turn off sched_load_balance in that realtime cpuset.
>>
>> Ah, I don't think 3 is needed. Quite to the contrary, there is quite a
>> large body of research work covering the scheduling of (hard and soft)
>> realtime tasks on multiple cpus.
>
> Well, the way it's coded now, the user space code needs to do (3),
> because that's the only way they get the system to have anything
> other than one big fat sched domain covering the all the CPUs in
> the system.
What about exclusive cpusets? Don't they create a new sched-domain or did I misunderstand there?
-Greg
>
> Actually ... I need a picture of a bunny with a pancake hat here,
> as I have no idea what you just said ;).
--
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