Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Oct 2006 00:52:50 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] cpuset: add interface to isolated cpus |
| |
Nick Piggin wrote:
> set_cpus_allowed is a feature of the scheduler that allows you to > restrict one task to a subset of all cpus. Right? > > And cpusets uses this interface as the mechanism to implement the > semantics which the user has asked for. Yes? > > sched-domains partitioning is a feature of the scheduler that > allows you to restrict zero or more tasks to the partition, and > zero or more tasks to the complement of the partition. OK? > > So if you have a particular policy you need to implement, which is > one cpus_exclusive cpuset off the root, covering half the cpus in > the system (as a simple example)... why is it good to implement > that with set_cpus_allowed and bad to implement it with partitions? > > Or, another question, how does my patch hijack cpus_allowed? In > what way does it change the semantics of cpus_allowed?
That should be, in what way does it change the semantics of cpusets in any way?
IOW, how could a user possibly notice or care that partitions are being used to implement a given policy? (apart from the fact that the balancing will work better).
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- 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/
| |