![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
I have been wanting to follow the cpumeter discussion more closely, but currently am tied up. I hope to have more time towards the end of this week. I had a few queries below, though On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 12:01:59AM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote: > Dinikar, > > How much grief will it cause you if I make the following incompatible > change to the special boolean files in each cpuset directory? > > I think I goofed in encouraging you to overload "cpu_exclusive" > with defining dynamic scheduler domains. I should have asked for a > separate flag to be added for that, say "sched_domain", which would > require "cpu_exclusive=1" as a precondition. Other attributes that > require cpu_exclusive or mem_exclusive are showing up, and it makes > more sense for each of them to get their own boolean, and leave the > "*_exclusive" flags to specify just the exclusive (no overlap with > sibling) attribute. One of the reasons for overloading the cpu_exclusive flag was to ensure that the rebalance code does not try to pull tasks unnecessarily With the scheme that you are proposing that is a possibility if you turn on the cpu_exclusive and meter_cpu for example and not turn on sched_domain. Is there a reason why we would want to have exclusive cpusets not attached to sched domains at all? I am not entirely convinced that we can compare sched_domains and meter_cpus. However I am still open if there is a convincing reason to have exclusive cpusets that dont form sched domains. -Dinakar - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-10-03 13:55 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||