Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932098AbVJCXgx (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2005 19:36:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932695AbVJCXgx (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2005 19:36:53 -0400 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:36822 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932098AbVJCXgx (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2005 19:36:53 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:36:27 -0700 From: Paul Jackson To: dino@in.ibm.com Cc: kurosawa@valinux.co.jp, taka@valinux.co.jp, magnus.damm@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: Ok to change cpuset flags for sched domains? (was [PATCH 1/3] CPUMETER ...) Message-Id: <20051003163627.772fa047.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20051003140032.GA6629@in.ibm.com> References: <20050908225539.0bc1acf6.pj@sgi.com> <20050909.203849.33293224.taka@valinux.co.jp> <20050909063131.64dc8155.pj@sgi.com> <20050910.161145.74742186.taka@valinux.co.jp> <20050910015209.4f581b8a.pj@sgi.com> <20050926093432.9975870043@sv1.valinux.co.jp> <20050927013751.47cbac8b.pj@sgi.com> <20050927113902.C78A570046@sv1.valinux.co.jp> <20050927084905.7d77bdde.pj@sgi.com> <20051002000159.3f15bf7a.pj@sgi.com> <20051003140032.GA6629@in.ibm.com> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.0.0beta5 (GTK+ 2.4.9; 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: 1086 Lines: 30 Dinakar, responding to pj: > > I think I goofed in encouraging you to overload "cpu_exclusive" > > with defining dynamic scheduler domains. > > I am not entirely convinced ... You're right. It's correct the way it is. The placement of dynamic sched domains does not cause some user visible change in behaviour that it makes sense for the user to want to turn on for some cpusets and off for others. Rather it is a performance optimization for scheduler scalability, and the resulting domains must cover all the CPUs in the system. So the placement of sched domains should not be a user option, and should be done for all cpu_exclusive domains as it is done now. Good. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401 - 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/