Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 01:15:46 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, dino@in.ibm.com, menage@google.com,
       Simon.Derr@bull.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mbligh@google.com,
       rohitseth@google.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Cpuset: explicit dynamic sched domain control flags
Message-Id: <20061019011546.39c7a8df.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <453732CF.7050801@yahoo.com.au>
References: <20061016230351.19049.29855.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com>
	<20061017114306.A19690@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
	<20061017121823.e6f695aa.pj@sgi.com>
	<20061017190144.A19901@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
	<20061018000512.1d13aabd.pj@sgi.com>
	<45371D96.8060003@yahoo.com.au>
	<20061019000303.f9d883e4.pj@sgi.com>
	<453732CF.7050801@yahoo.com.au>
Organization: SGI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 750
Lines: 18

> But please don't let *users* try to deal with it.

Agreed - that's why I am about to send a patch that removes
the sched domain side affects of the cpu_exclusive flag.

Well, not entirely agreed.  User space code does need
to be able to specify some cpus as isolated from scheduler
balancing.  I will send a second patch to support that.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 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/