[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49248560.1020501@novell.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:30:08 -0500
From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
CC: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_domain and
no load balance
Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 03:25:15PM -0500, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>> It sounds like the problem with my code is that "null sched domain"
>> translates into "default root-domain" which is understandably unexpected
>> by Dimitri (and myself). Really I intended root-domains to become
>> associated with each exclusive/disjoint cpuset that is created. In a
>> way, non-balanced/isolated cpus could be modeled as an exclusive cpuset
>> with one member, but that is somewhat beyond the scope of the
>>
>
> Actually, at one time, that is how things were setup. Setting the
> cpu_exclusive bit on a single cpu cpuset would isolate that cpu from
> load balancing.
>
Do you know if this was pre or post the root-domain code? Here is a
reference to the commit:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=57d885fea0da0e9541d7730a9e1dcf734981a173
A bisection that shows when this last worked for you would be very
appreciated if you have the time, Dimitri.
Regards,
-Greg
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (258 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists