Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030316AbWJSIbq (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2006 04:31:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030317AbWJSIbq (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2006 04:31:46 -0400 Received: from omx1-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.179.11]:57041 "EHLO omx1.americas.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030316AbWJSIbo (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2006 04:31:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 01:31:30 -0700 From: Paul Jackson To: Nick Piggin Cc: holt@sgi.com, 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: exclusive cpusets broken with cpu hotplug Message-Id: <20061019013130.d374b7ba.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <45373478.1030004@yahoo.com.au> References: <20061017192547.B19901@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <20061018001424.0c22a64b.pj@sgi.com> <20061018095621.GB15877@lnx-holt.americas.sgi.com> <20061018031021.9920552e.pj@sgi.com> <45361B32.8040604@yahoo.com.au> <20061018231559.8d3ede8f.pj@sgi.com> <45371CBB.2030409@yahoo.com.au> <20061018235746.95343e77.pj@sgi.com> <4537238A.7060106@yahoo.com.au> <20061019003316.f6a77b34.pj@sgi.com> <45373478.1030004@yahoo.com.au> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.3; 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: 1674 Lines: 38 > So make the new rule "cpu_exclusive && direct-child-of-root-cpuset". > Your problems go away, and they haven't been pushed to userspace. I don't know of anyone that has need for this feature. Do you? If you do - good - lets consider them anew. If such needs arise, I doubt I would recommend meeting them with the cpu_exclusive flag, in any way shape or form. That would probably not be a particularly clear and intuitive interface for whatever it was we needed. > If a user wants to, for some crazy reason, have a set of cpu_exclusive > sets deep in the cpuset hierarchy, such that no load balancing happens > between them... just tell them they can't; they should just make those > cpusets children of the root. I have no problem telling users what the limits are on mechanisms. I have serious problems trying to push mechanisms on them that I couldn't understand until after repeated attempts over many months, that are counter intuitive and dangerous (at least unless such odd rules are imposed) to use, and that provide no useful feedback to the user as to what they are doing. It doesn't increase my sympathy for this code that it has been my biggest source of customer maintenance costs due to a couple of serious bugs, in all of the cpuset code. -- 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/