Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:51:35 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com>
Cc: Nish Aravamudan <nish.aravamudan@gmail.com>,
       Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
       Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
       Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>,
       "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Using cpusets for configuration/isolation [Was Re: RT sched:
	cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_domain and no load balance]
Message-ID: <20081119125135.GB20475@elte.hu>
References: <29495f1d0811071123x37d910a8w6c1604b8159954ec@mail.gmail.com> <4923731E.7010601@qualcomm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4923731E.7010601@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 616
Lines: 16


* Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com> wrote:

> What you described is almost exactly what I did in my original cpu 
> isolation patch, which did get NAKed :). Basically I used global 
> cpu_isolated_map and exposed 'isolated' bit, etc.

Please extend cpusets according to the plan outlined by PeterZ a few 
months ago - that's the right place to do partitioning.

	Ingo
--
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/