Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932165AbXE2ATA (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2007 20:19:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752717AbXE2ASw (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2007 20:18:52 -0400 Received: from omta04ps.mx.bigpond.com ([144.140.83.156]:50070 "EHLO omta04ps.mx.bigpond.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752620AbXE2ASv (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2007 20:18:51 -0400 Message-ID: <465B7163.7020403@bigpond.net.au> Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 10:18:43 +1000 From: Peter Williams User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vatsa@in.ibm.com CC: Kirill Korotaev , Nick Piggin , tingy@cs.umass.edu, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Balbir Singh , efault@gmx.de, kernel@kolivas.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, wli@holomorphy.com, tong.n.li@intel.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, Ingo Molnar , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Guillaume Chazarain Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS References: <3d8471ca0705231112rfac9cfbt9145ac2da8ec1c85@mail.gmail.com> <20070523183824.GA7388@elte.hu> <4654BF88.3030404@yahoo.fr> <20070525074500.GD6157@in.ibm.com> <20070525082951.GA25280@elte.hu> <4656DF0C.9090306@sw.ru> <20070525153450.GA4679@in.ibm.com> <46570C70.4050209@sw.ru> <20070525180850.GA26884@in.ibm.com> <46577CA6.8000807@bigpond.net.au> <20070528172658.GA18582@in.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20070528172658.GA18582@in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at oaamta04ps.mx.bigpond.com from [60.231.45.148] using ID pwil3058@bigpond.net.au at Tue, 29 May 2007 00:18:48 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1266 Lines: 31 Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 10:17:42AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote: >> I don't think that ignoring cpu affinity is an option. Setting the cpu >> affinity of tasks is a deliberate policy action on the part of the >> system administrator and has to be honoured. > > mmm ..but users can set cpu affinity w/o administrator priveleges .. > OK. So you have to assume the users know what they're doing. :-) In reality though, the policy of allowing ordinary users to set affinity on their tasks should be rethought. In any case, there's no point having cpu affinity if it's going to be ignored. Maybe you could have two levels of affinity: 1. if set by a root it must be obeyed; and 2. if set by an ordinary user it can be overridden if the best interests of the system dictate. BUT I think that would be a bad idea. Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce - 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/