Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932360AbXE2B4U (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2007 21:56:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759406AbXE2B4N (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2007 21:56:13 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:29855 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754647AbXE2B4M (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2007 21:56:12 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=PARkhZF+/1MY98X/0gJfW9ci97ormPZOXRnMYRhaGLv2nKEmnpl2ThERrq1tTjogB M0cGe1ALTNbMVSqzUiY0g== Message-ID: <6599ad830705281855w67921bb4kda8813cf993656df@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 18:55:52 -0700 From: "Paul Menage" To: "Peter Williams" Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS Cc: vatsa@in.ibm.com, "Nick Piggin" , wli@holomorphy.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, "Balbir Singh" , efault@gmx.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tingy@cs.umass.edu, "Kirill Korotaev" , kernel@kolivas.org, tong.n.li@intel.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, "Ingo Molnar" , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, "Guillaume Chazarain" In-Reply-To: <465B7163.7020403@bigpond.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3d8471ca0705231112rfac9cfbt9145ac2da8ec1c85@mail.gmail.com> <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> <465B7163.7020403@bigpond.net.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 734 Lines: 17 On 5/28/07, Peter Williams wrote: > > 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. Something like that already exists (at least for controlling the bounding set of allowed cpus) via cpusets. Paul - 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/