Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751739AbWJUGOZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:14:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751740AbWJUGOZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:14:25 -0400 Received: from smtp110.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.220]:29374 "HELO smtp110.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751738AbWJUGOX (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:14:23 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=vCTNC9H91xWx3fOQmk7wAeVtpXQWa8y4bPkOAv1iGB/DOGQtEeGTET+kr7fa0RoNzq9hdza/gpf7Da5gvo96othc0XmgdAeEKQE9evkAWKtAZTX7jLyhRB3ykhVLtoiQlNXwynTncjadw1mWaE0LmkEY2SOvGYVaD1MLTG0HNFo= ; Message-ID: <4539BAB2.3010501@yahoo.com.au> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:14:10 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Jackson CC: akpm@osdl.org, mbligh@google.com, menage@google.com, Simon.Derr@bull.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dino@in.ibm.com, rohitseth@google.com, holt@sgi.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, clameter@sgi.com Subject: Re: [RFC] cpuset: add interface to isolated cpus References: <20061019092607.17547.68979.sendpatchset@sam.engr.sgi.com> <453750AA.1050803@yahoo.com.au> <20061019105515.080675fb.pj@sgi.com> <4537BEDA.8030005@yahoo.com.au> <20061019115652.562054ca.pj@sgi.com> <4537CC1E.60204@yahoo.com.au> <20061019203744.09b8c800.pj@sgi.com> <453882AC.3070500@yahoo.com.au> <20061020130141.b5e986dd.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20061020130141.b5e986dd.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 978 Lines: 28 Paul Jackson wrote: > Nick wrote: > >>Or, another question, how does my patch hijack cpus_allowed? In >>what way does it change the semantics of cpus_allowed? > > > It limits load balancing for tasks in cpusets containing > a superset of that cpusets cpus. > > There are always such cpusets - the top cpuset if no other. Ah OK, and there is my misunderstanding with cpusets. From the documentation it appears as though cpu_exclusive cpusets are made in order to do the partitioning thing. If you always have other domains overlapping them (regardless that it is a parent), then what actual use does cpu_exclusive flag have? -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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/