[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080311140858.d0ecd47f.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:08:58 -0500
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuset: cpuset irq affinities
Max wrote:
> Please take a look at
> [PATCH 2/2] cpusets: Improved irq affinity handling
> I'm treating irqs just like tasks (at least I think I'm :).
Well, I see the one comment in your Patch 2/2 noting you're unsure
of the locking in one place.
I don't see any further comments on or additional code involving
locking.
I don't see where you respond to my discussion with Peter of March
6 and 7, where I expressed some doubts about Peters patch (which you
built on in your patch 1/2 in this series).
I see only a little bit of additional comments in your patch 2/2
regarding handling of moving irqs to higher non-empty cpusets if a
cpuset is emptied of its CPUs.
I don't see any explanation of what you mean by "desired semantics."
I don't see any response to the alternatives to Peter's earlier patch
(your Patch 1/2 here) that Peter and I discussed in that discussion of
March 6 and 7.
And, in particular, could you respond to the question in my last
message:
> What semantics to you impose on irqs in overlapping cpusets,
> which would seem to lead to conflicting directives as to
> whether one set or another of irqs was to be applied to the
> CPUs in the overlap?
--
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