Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268392AbUJDE1j (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Oct 2004 00:27:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268400AbUJDE1j (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Oct 2004 00:27:39 -0400 Received: from omx3-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.20]:42709 "EHLO omx3.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268392AbUJDE1h (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Oct 2004 00:27:37 -0400 Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 21:24:52 -0700 From: Paul Jackson To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: pwil3058@bigpond.net.au, frankeh@watson.ibm.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@osdl.org, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, efocht@hpce.nec.com, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, hch@infradead.org, steiner@sgi.com, jbarnes@sgi.com, sylvain.jeaugey@bull.net, djh@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, colpatch@us.ibm.com, Simon.Derr@bull.net, ak@suse.de, sivanich@sgi.com Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement Message-Id: <20041003212452.1a15a49a.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <838090000.1096862199@[10.10.2.4]> References: <20040805100901.3740.99823.84118@sam.engr.sgi.com> <20040805190500.3c8fb361.pj@sgi.com> <247790000.1091762644@[10.10.2.4]> <200408061730.06175.efocht@hpce.nec.com> <20040806231013.2b6c44df.pj@sgi.com> <411685D6.5040405@watson.ibm.com> <20041001164118.45b75e17.akpm@osdl.org> <20041001230644.39b551af.pj@sgi.com> <20041002145521.GA8868@in.ibm.com> <415ED3E3.6050008@watson.ibm.com> <415F37F9.6060002@bigpond.net.au> <821020000.1096814205@[10.10.2.4]> <20041003083936.7c844ec3.pj@sgi.com> <834330000.1096847619@[10.10.2.4]> <835810000.1096848156@[10.10.2.4]> <20041003175309.6b02b5c6.pj@sgi.com> <838090000.1096862199@[10.10.2.4]> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1432 Lines: 29 Martin wrote: > Then when I fork off exclusive subset for CPUs 1&2, I have to push A & B > into it. Tasks A & B must _not_ be considered members of that exclusive cpuset, even though it seems that A & B must be attended to by the sched_domain and memory_domain associated with that cpuset. The workload managers expect to be able to list the tasks in a cpuset, so it can hibernate, migrate, kill-off, or wait for the finish of these tasks. I've been through this bug before - it was one that cost Hawkes a long week to debug - I was moving the per-cpu migration threads off their home CPU because I didn't have a clear way to distinguish tasks genuinely in a cpuset, from tasks that just happened to be indigenous to some of the same CPUs. My essential motivation for adapting a cpuset implementation that has a task struct pointer to a shared cpuset struct was to track exactly this relation - which tasks are in which cpuset. No ... tasks A & B are not allowed in that new exclusive cpuset. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.650.933.1373 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/