Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754514AbYKSURu (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:17:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752909AbYKSURl (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:17:41 -0500 Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:22588 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752919AbYKSURk (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:17:40 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5100,188,5439"; a="13281112" Message-ID: <49247462.4030101@qualcomm.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:17:38 -0800 From: Max Krasnyansky User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dimitri Sivanich CC: Gregory Haskins , Peter Zijlstra , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Ingo Molnar 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> <49246DD0.3010509@qualcomm.com> <20081119195517.GB662@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20081119195517.GB662@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1120 Lines: 24 Dimitri Sivanich wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:49:36AM -0800, Max Krasnyansky wrote: >> I think the idea is that we want to make balancer a noop on those processors. > > Ultimately, making the balancer a noop on processors with load balancing turned off would be the best solution. Yes. I forgot to point out that if we do change cpusets to generate sched domain per cpu we want to make sure that balancer is still a noop just like it is today with the null sched domain. >> 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 ? > > It doesn't make sense to me that they'd have a root domain attached that spans more of the the system than that cpu. I think 'root' in this case is a bit of a misnomer. What I meant is that each non-balanced cpu would be in a separate sched domain. 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/