[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1343017683.7336.67.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 06:28:03 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
paul@...lmenage.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] cpusets: dynamical scheduler domain flags
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 10:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 07/21/2012 12:42 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 17:03 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> This patch set provide a way for user to dynamically configure the scheduler
> >> domain flags, which usually to be static.
> >
> > NAK.. you don't get to expose all this nonsense in a 'stable' ABI.
> >
> > You shouldn't need to prod at them to begin with.
>
> So is that means expose those domain flags to user is a bad idea at all?
You can set/clear flags with scripts now, ie domain flags are already
exposed.. as defined by the running kernel.
SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES is a good flag look at. What does flipping that
switch do, and what did it stop doing recently? So yeah, methinks
exporting flags via cpusets is a bad idea. Not only is existence of any
particular flag volatile, functionality behind it is volatile as well,
so having a button to poke does undefined things. (not to mention
non-exclusive sets)
-Mike
--
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