[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1522133652.5996.2.camel@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:54:12 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com, pjt@...gle.com, luto@...capital.net,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] cpuset: Add cpuset.sched_load_balance to v2
On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 16:28 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>
> The sched_load_balance flag isn't something that is passed to the
> scheduler. It only only affects the CPU topology of the system. So I
> suspect that a process in the root cgroup will be load balanced among
> the CPUs in the one of the child cgroups.
Yes, among CPUs that remain part of topology (and intersect affinity).
> That doesn't look right unless
> we enforce that no process can be in the root cgroup in this case.
caveat: quite a few kthreads are nailed to the floor of root.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists