Message-ID: <49246DD0.3010509@qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:49:36 -0800
From: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
CC: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
       "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_domain and
 no load balance
References: <20081103210748.GC9937@sgi.com> <1225751603.7803.1640.camel@twins> <490FC735.1070405@novell.com> <49105D84.8070108@novell.com> <1225809393.7803.1669.camel@twins> <20081104144017.GB30855@sgi.com> <4910634C.1020207@novell.com>
In-Reply-To: <4910634C.1020207@novell.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 861
Lines: 19

Gregory Haskins wrote:
> If you tried creating different cpusets and it still had them all end up
> in the def_root_domain, something is very broken indeed.  I will take a
> look.

I beleive that's the intended behaviour. We always put cpus that are not
balanced into null sched domains. This was done since day one (ie when
cpuisol= option was introduced) and cpusets just followed the same convention.

I think the idea is that we want to make balancer a noop on those processors.
We could change cpusets code to create a root sched domain for each cpu I
guess. But can we maybe scale cpupri some other way ?

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/