[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1292861799.5021.27.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:16:39 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@....ibm.com>,
Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 15/15] nohz_task: Procfs interface
On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 16:57 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Should I?
Well yes, this interface of explicitly marking a task and cpu as
task_no_hz is kinda restrictive and useless.
When I run 4 cpu-bound tasks on a quad-core I shouldn't have to do
anything to benefit from this.
I don't see why having this cpumask is restricting you in any way,
user-space tasks don't migrate around, that all happens in kernel space.
Also, I'm not quite happy with the pure userspace restriction, but at
least I see why you did that event though you didn't mention that.
--
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