[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <479F4F5E.BA47.005A.0@novell.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:07:58 -0700
From: "Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To: "Paul Jackson" <pj@....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
>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 4:02 PM, in message
<20080129150234.b57ce988.pj@....com>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com> wrote:
> Gregory wrote:
>> > ... (1) turning off
>> > sched_load_balance in any overlapping cpusets, including all
>> > encompassing parent cpusets, (2) leaving sched_load_balance on in the
>> > RT cpuset itself, and ...
>>
>> Technically you only need (2). I run my 4-8 core development systems
>> in the single default global cpuset, normally.
>
> Well, if you're running in the default cpuset, then you automatically get
> (1),
> because sched_load_balance is turned off in all overlapping cpusets (there
> aren't any overlapping cpusets!)
>
> So, yes, you -do- need both (1) and (2). In your normal system, you
> just happen to get (1) effortlessly.
Ah. Well see, I am just showing my ignorance of this area of the cpuset code then. I stand corrected, and sorry for the noise. :)
-Greg
--
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