[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080129145647.579b7d53.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:56:47 -0600
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: "Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Cc: a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, 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
Gregory wrote:
> By moving it into the root_domain structure, there is now an instance
> per (um, for lack of a better, more up to date word) "exclusive"
> cpuset. That way, disparate cpusets will not bother each other with
> overload notifications, etc.
So the root_domain structure is meant to be the portions of the
sched_domains that are shared across all CPUs in that sched_domain ?
And the word 'cpuset', occurring in the above quote twice, should
be 'sched_domain', right ? Surely these aren't cpuset's ;).
And 'exclusive cpuset' really means 'non-overlapping sched_domain' ?
Or am I still confused ?
I would like to get our concepts clear, and terms consistent. That's
important for those others who would try to understand this.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.940.382.4214
--
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