[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47F346A8.5000801@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:41:12 +0900
From: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Customize sched domain via cpuset
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 20:27 +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
>> The implementation is here.
>>
>> - Add 2 new cpuset files:
>> sched_wake_idle_far
>> sched_balance_newidle_far
>>
>> - Modify partition_sched_domains() and build_sched_domains()
>> to take flags parameter passed from cpuset.
>>
>> - Fill newidle_idx for node domains which currently unused but
>> might be required for sched_balance_newidle_far.
>
> Just to be clear; the same effect can be had by poking into:
>
> /proc/sys/kernel/sched_domain/$cpu/$domain/flags
>
> but this interface you now propose gives a more stable interface in that
> you'd have to re-do your setting after every cpuset change (admittedly
> those are rare, but I see how it could be a nuisance).
And the sysctl entry "sched_domain" is not available unless SCHED_DEBUG.
So it is common sense that this sysctl is not open to public yet,
and that the expected users are scheduler developers, Ingo and friends.
> Or do you actually add something that wasn't available through the
> initial domain interface?
At this time I have no idea, but it would be possible if there are
something unreasonable on global system but acceptable on a part.
In other words, we can invent other sched_* families which has special
effect that "default scheduler" never have.
Thanks,
H.Seto
--
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