![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Martin Bligh wrote: > >> I don't know of anyone else using cpusets, but I'd be interested to know. > > > We (Google) are planning to use it to do some partitioning, albeit on > much smaller machines. I'd really like to NOT use cpus_allowed from > previous experience - if we can get it to to partition using separated > sched domains, that would be much better. > > From my dim recollections of previous discussions when cpusets was > added in the first place, we asked for exactly the same thing then. > I think some of the problem came from the fact that "exclusive" > to cpusets doesn't actually mean exclusive at all, and they're > shared in some fashion. Perhaps that issue is cleared up now? > /me crosses all fingers and toes and prays really hard. The I believe, is that an exclusive cpuset can have an exclusive parent and exclusive children, which obviously all overlap one another, and thus you have to do the partition only at the top-most exclusive cpuset. Currently, cpusets is creating partitions in cpus_exclusive children as well, which breaks balancing for the parent. The patch I posted previously should (modulo bugs) only do partitioning in the top-most cpuset. I still need clarification from Paul as to why this is unacceptable, though. -- 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-10-20 18:05 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||