Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:33:40 -0600
From: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Cc: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.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
Message-ID: <20081119203340.GC2383@sgi.com>
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> <4924762B.8000108@novell.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4924762B.8000108@novell.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1930
Lines: 38

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 03:25:15PM -0500, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> It sounds like the problem with my code is that "null sched domain"
> translates into "default root-domain" which is understandably unexpected
> by Dimitri (and myself).  Really I intended root-domains to become
> associated with each exclusive/disjoint cpuset that is created.  In a
> way, non-balanced/isolated cpus could be modeled as an exclusive cpuset
> with one member, but that is somewhat beyond the scope of the

Actually, at one time, that is how things were setup.  Setting the
cpu_exclusive bit on a single cpu cpuset would isolate that cpu from
load balancing.

> root-domain code as it stands today.  My primary concern was that
> Dimitri reports that even creating a disjoint cpuset per cpu does not
> yield an isolated root-domain per cpu.  Rather they all end up in the
> default root-domain, and this is not what I intended at all.
> 
> However, as a secondary goal it would be nice to somehow directly
> support the "no-load-balance" option without requiring explicit
> exclusive per-cpu cpusets to do it.  The proper mechanism (IMHO) to
> scope the scheduler to a subset of cpus (including only "self") is
> root-domains so I would prefer to see the solution based on that. 
> However, today there is a rather tight coupling of root-domains and
> cpusets, so this coupling would likely have to be relaxed a little bit
> to get there.
> 
> There are certainly other ways to solve the problem as well.  But seeing
> as how I intended root-domains to represent the effective partition
> scope of the scheduler, this seems like a natural fit in my mind until
> its proven to me otherwise.
>

Agreed. 
--
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/