[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] Re: [PATCH 1/3] CPUMETER: add cpumeter framework to the CPUSETS
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:49:32 -0700
Jackson-san wrote:

> > This seems good for me.
> > I'd like to make sure that tasks in CPUSET 2a and CPUSET 2b actually
> > have the cpumask of CPUSET 1a. Is this correct?
> Oh I think not. My primary motivation in pushing on this point
> of the design was to allow CPUSET 2a and 2b to have a smaller
> cpumask than CPUSET 1a. This is used for example to allow a job
> that is running in 1a to setup two child cpusets, 2a and 2b,
> to run two subtasks that are constrained to smaller portions of
> the CPUs allowed to the job in 1a.

Maybe I still misunderstand your idea.
The guarantee assigned to CPUSET 1a might not be satisfied if
tasks are attached to CPUSET 2a only and no tasks are attached to
CPUSET 1a nor CPUSET 2b. Does your idea leave as it is because
the user sets up CPUSETs like that?

Leaving that situation as it is seems enough feasible as one option.
Another option is to prohibit CPUSET 2a/2b from having smaller portions
of CPUs that is assigned to CPUSET 1a.

> How would hacking cpuset_cpus_allowed() help here?

I was going to modify cpuset_cpus_allowed(CPUSET 2a/2b) as returning
cpumask of CPUSET 1a, if tasks in CPUSET 2a and CPUSET 2b have the
cpumask of CPUSET 1a.

BTW, thank you for fixing the [PATCH] mail that I had sent in wrong format.

KUROSAWA, Takahiro
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-09-29 04:56    [W:0.139 / U:7.660 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site