[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081119125135.GB20475@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:51:35 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Cc: Nish Aravamudan <nish.aravamudan@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Using cpusets for configuration/isolation [Was Re: RT sched:
cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_domain and no load balance]
* Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com> wrote:
> What you described is almost exactly what I did in my original cpu
> isolation patch, which did get NAKed :). Basically I used global
> cpu_isolated_map and exposed 'isolated' bit, etc.
Please extend cpusets according to the plan outlined by PeterZ a few
months ago - that's the right place to do partitioning.
Ingo
--
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