Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754125AbYKSRpU (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:45:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752965AbYKSRpH (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:45:07 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:43939 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752857AbYKSRpF (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:45:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:44:49 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Max Krasnyansky Cc: Nish Aravamudan , Peter Zijlstra , Gregory Haskins , Dimitri Sivanich , "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: <20081119174448.GB31560@elte.hu> References: <29495f1d0811071123x37d910a8w6c1604b8159954ec@mail.gmail.com> <4923731E.7010601@qualcomm.com> <20081119125135.GB20475@elte.hu> <49243F7C.9090109@qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49243F7C.9090109@qualcomm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE RBL: Envelope sender in blackholes.securitysage.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1108 Lines: 27 * Max Krasnyansky wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Max Krasnyansky 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. > > Already did. It's all in mainline. The part you quoted was just > pointing out that the original approach was not correct. Yeah, we have bits of it (i merged them, and i still remember them ;-) - but we still dont have the "system set" concept suggested by Peter though. We could go further and make it really easy to partition all scheduling and irq aspects of the system via cpusets. 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/