Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760182AbYA1Vsj (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:48:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753226AbYA1Vsa (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:48:30 -0500 Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]:44591 "EHLO ithilien.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753211AbYA1Vsa (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:48:30 -0500 Message-ID: <479E4D74.8060800@qualcomm.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:47:32 -0800 From: Max Krasnyanskiy User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Jackson CC: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, srostedt@redhat.com, ghaskins@novell.com Subject: Re: [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions References: <1201493382-29804-1-git-send-email-maxk@qualcomm.com> <1201511305.6149.30.camel@lappy> <20080128085910.7d38e9f5.pj@sgi.com> <479E20DA.2080403@qualcomm.com> <20080128130637.60db148e.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20080128130637.60db148e.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1578 Lines: 36 Paul Jackson wrote: > Max wrote: >> So far it seems that extending cpu_isolated_map >> is more natural way of propagating this notion to the rest of the kernel. >> Since it's very similar to the cpu_online_map concept and it's easy to integrated >> with the code that already uses it. > > If it were just realtime support, then I suspect I'd agree that > extending cpu_isolated_map makes more sense. > > But some people use realtime on systems that are also heavily > managed using cpusets. The two have to work together. I have > customers with systems running realtime on a few CPUs, at the > same time that they have a large batch scheduler (which is layered > on top of cpusets) managing jobs on a few hundred other CPUs. > Hence with the cpuset 'sched_load_balance' flag I think I've already > done what I think is one part of what your patches achieve by extending > the cpu_isolated_map. > > This is a common situation with "resource management" mechanisms such > as cpusets (and more recently cgroups and the subsystem modules it > supports.) They cut across existing core kernel code that manages such > key resources as CPUs and memory. As best we can, they have to work > with each other. Thanks for the info Paul. I'll definitely look into using this flag instead and reply with pros and cons (if any). Max -- 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/