[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0807150013020.8553@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:16:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, miaox@...fujitsu.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: current linux-2.6.git: cpusets completely broken
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I'm not arguing. My mind is going off to an even bigger picture, where
> > something in the future would need to stop migration to a particular CPU,
> > and that it could simply clear the bit and call synchronize_sched. The run
> > queue lock is only visible to the scheduler. Sorry, I may have been day
> > dreaming out loud ;-)
>
> Well, you'd be stuck right now anyway.
>
> At least in my trivial patch, the cpu_active_map locking is protected by
> 'cpu_add_remove_lock' which is static to cpu.c. The only thing that
> modifies it (apart from the initial setup before SMP has been brought up)
> is the hotplug code.
Yeah, I see that now. I was thinking back to a time I was doing some crazy
kernel hacking and would have liked this feature (stop new tasks from
migrating to a CPU). cpusets today are probably a better answer, and what
I was thinking with using the cpu_active_map is more of a hack.
Sorry for the noise, I'll go back to updating ftrace.txt
-- Steve
--
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